That's still a disincentive: my effectively hourly rate decreases the more hours I work. Not sure how that's fair. A flat tax is the only fair tax. You make more, you pay more, but you aren't taking an effective pay cut per hour based on simply working more.
Progressive taxation is more fair from the standpoint of society at large. You're being myopic in only considering it from your point of view. How is it "fair" to force someone who is barely making ends meet and struggles to sometimes put food on the table to pay the same exact tax rate as someone who is rich, and whose biggest economic struggle is wondering whether to upgrade to a bigger yacht this year or next year? That extra $1,000 you'd be forcing the poor person to pay in tax would feed their kid for a year, but the rich guy doesn't even notice paying that much extra. Money does not have constant utility across all people. Maximizing the total utility across society -- now that's fair.
Not directly, but usually their labour is generating the value that produces the income that gets transferred to the rich person (eg via return on capital) allowing the payment for luxuries and the taxes on them (though more usually, it seems, the costs of avoiding said taxes).
Is that a joke? None of those are even real taxes. Sure, you pay sales tax on a yacht, but the poor person is paying the exact same percentage on their everyday items. That's regressive.
Also, don't you see how callous it is to worry about how a rich person has to pay country club dues, in the context of talking about poor people who struggle to afford food sometimes? Why would your sympathies lie with the person who has all of their basic needs met and is "struggling" only to utilize as many luxury goods (yachts, country clubs, sports cars, box seats) as possible?
Most flat taxes do not land in the "you make more, you pay more" scheme. Instead, they are in the "you spend more, you pay more." Which, doesn't sound bad, necessarily.
However, there are two problems that I see. I suspect there are more.
First is that what you spend is only related to what you make. Specifically, it is relatively easy to find ways to not spend money if you have extra. What this means is that, at an absolute level of what you make, a flat tax actually gives a very easy way for high income people to have a lower tax rate. Turning it into "the more you make, the more you can proportionally keep." Which is sorta antithetical to the idea of the flat tax.
The second problem is essentially the cold start problem. Society is expensive to keep going. There is not much of a way around that. So, the rate will have to be relatively high to get the necessary funds. And this will hit those with low incomes harder than the ones with high.
I don't think either of these are necessarily road blocks to the idea. But, I do think it will necessarily get complicated.
'Most flat taxes do not land in the "you make more, you pay more" scheme':
I think you are missing the point. If it is truly a flat tax, the number of dollars you are taxed goes up (in a directly proportional way to the number of dollars you make). So you DO pay more the more you make. It isn't even a logically arguable point.
"a flat tax actually gives a very easy way for high income people to have a lower tax rate.":
-- again that's a completely illogical statement. If it is truly a flat tax *EVERYONE* has the same rate -- that's the very definition of a flat tax.
The entire first point is on the assumption that you are pushing the flat sales tax that is very common. Is anyone pushing for a flat income tax?
If so, apologies. It is still easier for the wealthy to dodge. But not as easy. (Main way I can think of is that at that level you can often live off the company. I don't think this happens enough to care about. Could be wrong.)
This still doesn't address the cold start problem. If a region needs X dollars and that requires Y rate, how do you ensure that doesn't drown out the poor?
And again, I'm not pushing these problems as show stoppers. Just things that contribute to a complicated solution.
Except no one gets to higher rate tax by working more hours. They get there by working approximately the same hours and being paid more for them. So they're not "taking a pay cut per hour", they're just not getting as much benefit from raising their rates as they would otherwise.
No one is going to refuse a salary bump because it will increase their marginal tax rate.
If you made $32.05 dollars per hour for 30 hours a week (50K a year) and paid 10% tax on those dollars, you would earn an effective after tax hourly rate of $28.84. If all dollars earned after 50K were then taxed at 15%, your effective after tax hourly rate for working more than 30 hours would be $27.24. A one dollar and six cent reduction. I believe the purpose of time and a half overtime is partly to correct this problem.
A couple years ago I worked with someone who, if he worked too many overtime hours (which came around from time to time), would get into the next tax bracket and it wouldn't be worth it. Not sure how much he got paid or how many overtime hours were required for that to happen, though.
> if he worked too many overtime hours (which came around from time to time), would get into the next tax bracket and it wouldn't be worth it
By "not worth it", I suppose you mean that he valued the marginal increase in income less than the marginal decrease in free time – which is entirely subjective and different from person to person? I don't see your point.
In the higher tax bracket, he didn't work enough overtime to offset the increased taxes and ended up with a smaller check than if he worked less. At least that's what he claimed.
