Passage A
Passage A
This author is happy with the flat tax system and thinks that its usage so far in Estonia and the eight countries that followed is evidence that the flat tax system can successfully work in the real world:
- seems to be working as well in practice as it does on the blackboard (end of P1) - practical types who said flat taxes cannot work offer a further objection, once they are shown such taxes working
The author presents an Objection to flat tax systems in the 2nd paragraph, , and then the author responds to that objection in the 3rd paragraph.
Since you can exempt a bottom layer of money, you can keep the poorest people from paying any tax. And since the tax code is so greatly simplified, rich people end up paying their correct share, rather than hiring fancy tax lawyers to seek loopholes allowing them to avoid paying their full tax.
Passage B
This author prefers graduated tax systems over flat tax systems. He starts by defending graduated taxes, by Clarifying a Misconception.
Misconception -- in a graduated system, richer people pay a higher tax rate on their whole earnings than poorer people do. Reality -- in a graduated system, you only pay a higher tax rate on the dollars you make over a certain threshold.
The 2nd paragraph explain the logic behind this system: the first $20,000 you make (for example) goes straight to survival expenses like food / shelter / clothing. Taking some of that for tax would make life far harder. Once you've already made $50,000 (for example) then the next $20,000 aren't as essential to you. If you only got $14,000 of it you'd probably still be fine: middle-income earners have much greater flexibility in absorbing small fluctuations in income.
The last paragraph is where the author of B starts Challenging the Position of flat taxers. He basically is saying that flat tax recognize the logic of the 2nd paragraph, but their system is just less nuanced than it could be, and the effect is worse on the middle class.