As of late, the Right insists on challenging the norm of America’s political elite.  While this is admirable, the two party system of "us against them” serves to only limit the spectrum of debate perspectives of a given topic; Critical Perspectives was developed to draw attention to shortcomings in the often limited and often Republican controlled perspectives of the Conservative Right.

This limited perspective can be seen in the support of "a” flat tax.  I say "a” flat tax because the Right is falling inline on a concept with blind the faith "a” flat tax plan will balance the equitability scales of fiscal injustice.  Hint: Life is unfair, these scales will NEVER balance.  Tax codes are a mere trade of who is harmed most by American taxations while the beneficiaries (if you will) of a said tax plan shifts towards those falling in line with a given political party’s agenda.  Simply put, those who get screwed and those who benefit from tax shifts over time changes as the political elite pander to various special interests that span far beyond the good and healthy interests of the people.  The blind support of a flat tax exemplifies the Right’s occasionally short sighted desires to correct the errors of a wrong-doing regime operating under the guise of an American Presidential Administration.

The Right has complained about government’s "one size fits all” cures that have led to blatantly unconstitutional Laws like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.  The flat tax is a one size fits all ideology that has as many faults as the current tax code when you consider the motivation behind the flat tax.  And it is here where we must be honest – the flat tax is intended as a punishment to be served against the American monetary under achiever.  The flat tax is the Republican entry into class warfare that has been pawned off on Conservatives who have again been duped into doing the Republican’s dirty work.

Disagree?  The Heritage Foundation chimed in the flat tax propaganda with a plan of their own.  The problem was not the plan per se’, it was the comments.  The idea is that a flat tax would simplify, standardize and make taxations equitably distributed among the people.  Here are some of the comments that should force Conservatives to re-evaluate their support of a flat tax.

Check this out:

Matt - PA · 8 weeks ago

Sorry -- good idea, wrong tax rate. I have a pretty good income, and my effective rate (not top nominal rate) is still well below 28%. I feel that I already pay too much in taxes -- why in the world would I want to pay more. This is not a rich vs. poor argument -- I am among the top 10% of taxpayers. And from the wording that it replaces payroll taxes...'excluding those dedicated to trust funds' -- that means that the major payroll taxes are still there -- Social Security (FICA) and Medicare, which are trust fund taxes -- so the real tax rate is more like 35%+!

No thank -- either this article is incomplete in describing the new flat tax, or they need to go back to the drawing board. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they didn't intend for big tax increases on the 2-10%, to employ the Occupy lingo (the bottom 50% of tax-filers do deserve a tax increase, being that they pay no taxes at all on their income).

Daniel P · 8 weeks ago

Now, why are you messing with your newly formed tax code already? If you pass your current plan, you've already given $3,500 health insurance tax credit , an anti-poverty tax credit for low-wage workers, and deductions for higher education, charitable contributions, and an optional home mortgage interest deduction. You're essentially saying that we should use the tax code to push people to do certain things - go to school, donate, buy a house. People will do this without the federal government's help. Stop pandering to people with the mortgage interest deduction. They don't need an incentive to gain equity in a house or gain education so they can have better, higher paying jobs. Be truly conservative and get rid of these ridiculous deductions. Thats how the tax code got screwed up in the first place. The path is paved with good intentions...

Martin · 8 weeks ago

In evaluating the plan, you state that lower income people in the 10% and 15% bracket really pay 25% to 30%. In reality part of that burden is paid by the employer. Under this plan the employer evidently is under no obligation to pay that same amount to the work in wages. So really there will be an out of pocket increase payable to this same extent by every one in the lower and middle classes.

And then there is this comment:

Warren Miller · 8 weeks ago

A flat tax was tried under Reagan's administration but it didn't work! The reason is that in defining "income" politicians immediately began carving out revenue and expanding "deductions" of their well heeled benefactors... thus today's convoluted tax code that no one can understand.

This plan is a noble attempt at streamlining and reducing the tax code but, it too will suffer the same fate.

Further, it does absolutely nothing to tax those people (including non-citizens) that operate below the radar of the IRS. More important it is a tax on the creation of income... what you tax you get less of!

From a more critical perspective, a flat tax is essentially more of the same under a new name and new perspective; some are helped, some are harmed – it’s just that simple.   You must add to the debate a perspective of the large economic picture where we would essentially impose taxes upon the larger non-tax paying population in a damaged economy that is 70% supported by consumer spending.  This states an expectation of extreme and utterly unreasonable proportion.

The flat tax supporter is saying they want all Americans to pay equal taxes fully, knowing more people will be with less income than there are people paying less in taxes.  This leads to an almost asinine assumption; things will improve with more people with less disposable income.  As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee dee dee!”

This reduces the debate to one of contempt against those lacking in economic position to pay income taxes at year’s end.  Hardly conservative values at work. Despite these glaringly obvious pitfalls, the largest and most threatening factor of a flat tax is going almost completely unnoticed.

 In switching the current and highly convoluted tax code to a flat tax, Americans should also consider the fact that in order to implement it; the Constitution will first have to be amended to remove current RESTRICTIONS on taxation powers which serve to limit government’s ability to tax the people.  Is the 112th Congress, which has proven itself to be the WORST and most UNTRUSTED Congress in measured US history, the right organization to implement a new tax program with no constitutional restraints limiting how much they tax the people the smartest thing to do?  Personally, I am thinking this would be a pretty bad idea given who we would be entrusting to implement such a tax with no constitutional restraints to keep a flat tax rate the people support.  Historically speaking, the introduced rate of a flat tax has NEVER been maintained by ANY government… EVER.  And we think now is the right time to introduce flat tax legislation with a Congress that bested only its predecessor in terms of America’s most corrupt; clearly, if the 111th and 112th Congress’ are any indication of the next Congress, it will not take long for a 25% flat tax to become 30%, 40% and 50%.  Perhaps, just perhaps, when dealing with ideological tax reform, it is wise to consider to whom which such taxations are entrusted.