When it comes to taxes, flat is finest

The benefits abound. A universal flat tax would alleviate dozens of obstacles now plaguing our economy. It would end double taxation on corporations (who are not our enemies), thus favoring savings and investment. Any economics freshman knows that these t wo factors determine productivity and economic growth. It would eliminate the hideous behemoth known as the tax code. Under a flat tax, you would file your taxes on a postcard. It would be simple, honest and effective. About now, someone in the audience r aises a rebellious hand, "But is it fair?"

Absolutely.

The flat tax has been continuously shot down by the deceptive claims of inequality. Under this argument, opponents inevitably slam the flat tax for "feeding the rich." Do the rich benefit from a flat tax?

Absolutely.

But the point of taxes, which many Americans (and most liberals) forget, is not to punish the rich. Abraham Lincoln once wrote, "You can not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You can not help the poor by destroying the rich." Taxes do not exist to topple the wealthy, increase charitable donations or decrease housing mortgages. They exist to pay for government. Period.

The cries of inequality then emerge as an argument of compensation - the rich owe their success to society. However, killing the rich with "progressive" taxes (there's an oxymoron) sends a disincentive for success. It tells us we can achieve the American dream, but we can't keep it. We can rise to the top only if we later fall to the bottom. It tells us not to try, not to strive, not to succeed. Such an attitude is destructive to the ones who have and defeating to the ones who haven't.

A flat tax levels the playing field. It treats every American the same, regardless of economic wealth. It loosens the stranglehold on the rich while tightening tax code loopholes, a heavily abused tool of the same class. To this end, the flat tax epitomiz es the point of capitalism, which is not the equal distribution of wealth, but of opportunity. At this, another hand shoots into the air, "But doesn't the flat tax destroy the poor?"

Absolutely not.

Exemptions are the key. The Forbes flat tax, which I would sever a limb to enact, offers a $13,000 exemption for each adult, $5,000 exemption for each child. A tap on the calculator shows that's $36,000 of tax-free income for a family of four. The poor of this country would pay nearly nothing. This is a stimulus and an incentive for our nation's destitute. Contrary to popular belief, the middle class would also thrive under this flat tax. The Fiscal Policy Institute, an unbiased, non-profit research group , proved that middle-class families earning up to $100,000 would keep $500 to $1600 more. Everyone wins. One final hand begs our attention, "Well, then. Who loses?"

No one.

The hardest myth for Americans to let go, besides the innocence of O.J., is the falsity of the zero-sum gain. In economic reality, you can decrease taxes and increase tax revenue. This truth surpasses even political lines. A Democrat, John F. Kennedy, pro ved it in 1963. A Republican, Ronald Reagan, proved it in 1980. (The latter case is marred by a horrific increase in the national debt, but this only proves that Congress goes berserk when allotted 25% more money to play with.) The flat tax spurs growth a cross the economic board. No one loses except IRS employees and tax lawyers, but they're not human anyway, so who cares?

I could continue to wow you with numbers, but the argument becomes stale. The driving force of the flat tax is fairness. We must uphold a new tax code that embraces the equality our country purports. Through the flat tax, we can spur economic growth while adhering to our original, democratic principles. One man, one vote and one tax rate.

Mark Joseph Goldenson is a freshman majoring in psychology and molecular and cellular biology. His column, 'Gold Standard,' appears every Friday.

By Mark Joseph Goldenson (columnist)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 14, 1997