Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT147 S3 P4 Q26 Explanation

Flat Tax Systems

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage

In 1994, Estonia became the first country to introduce a “flat tax” on personal and corporate income. Income is taxed at a single uniform rate of 26 percent: no schedule of rates, no deductions. So far eight countries have followed Estonia’s example. An old idea that for decades elicited the response, “Fine be working as well in practice as it does on the blackboard.

Practical types who said that flat taxes cannot work offer a further instant objection, once they are shown such taxes working, namely, that they are unfair. Enlightened countries, it is argued, have “progressive” tax systems, requiring high-income earners to forfeit a bigger share of their incomes in flat tax seems to rule this out in principle.

Not so. A flat tax on personal incomes combines a threshold (that is, an exempt amount) with a single rate of tax on all income above it. The extent to which such a system is progressive can be varied within wide limits using just these two variables. Under the systems operating in as much tax under new flat-tax regimes as they would have paid under the previous codes.

Passage

A lot of people don’t understand graduated, as opposed to “flat,” taxes. They think that if you make more money you pay a higher rate on your entire earnings, which seems unfair. Actually, graduated progressive taxes treat all taxpayers equally. Every taxpayer pays the same rate on equivalent layers of income. People of income over a specified amount. People, not dollars, are treated equally.

All people are created equal, but not all dollars are created equal. Earnings of the working poor go almost entirely for survival expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. At that level, every dollar is critical; even a small difference causes tremendous changes in quality of life. Middle-income have much greater flexibility in absorbing small fluctuations in income.

Even some of the flat tax proposals recognize this, and want to exempt a primary layer from the tax system. So, since they recognize that survival dollars are different from discretionary dollars, why go suddenly from one extreme (paying no taxes) to the other (paying the top rate)? Since flat tax proposals it is naturally going to fall on the middle class to make up the difference.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
26.

The authors of the two passages would be most likely to disagree

Answer choices

  1. Both Agree16% picked this

    a flat tax system can be

    We know author of A would agree with this, since his 3rd paragraph defends this idea. But the author of B would also agree with this, since her 3rd paragraph acknowledge that some flat tax systems recognize the difference of taxing poor vs. middle-class dollars and so exempt a primary layer from the tax system.

  2. Correct50% picked this

    high-income earners would pay less under a flat tax system than under a

    Why this is right

    The last sentence of each passage provides this disconnect: Passage A ends by saying that high-income earners end up paying about the same. Passage B ends by saying that "if the working poor are going to pay less and the high-income earners are going to pay less".

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Unsupported Agree Position: Passage B13% picked this

    flat tax systems are fine in theory but cannot be put

    Passage A would clearly disagree with this, as his first paragraph is about demonstrating that flat tax systems are being put into practice. Passage B never approaches this sort of extreme position -- "flat tax systems cannot be put into practice". If anything, psg B would only be arguing "maybe they could, but shouldn't be put into practice".

  4. Unsupported Agree Position: Passage A16% picked this

    graduated progressive systems make higher-income taxpayers pay a higher rate on

    We know that passage B would disagree with this, as her 1st paragraph tries to dispel this misconception about graduated taxes. However, there's nothing in passage A suggesting that the author holds this misconception or believes that higher earners pay a higher rate on all their earnings.

  5. Neither Author Supports5% picked this

    all of an individual's income should be subject

    This is an extreme position (all income should be taxed), which we can't find support for in either passage.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free