That depends about the level of sales & enterprises taxes in addition to employment rate. Generally giving tax cuts is simple, basic economics: decrease in taxes leaves more money for people to use and in western consumption societies, the money gets into circulation pretty fast which gives positive boost on the economy. Tax cuts have been succesfully used to boost the economy not in just Finland but also in Great Britain, Germany, Italy and USA to mention few examples.

Giving tax cuts gives not just more money on people's hands but also positive signal to consume more while people's every-day needs and advertising by enterprises takes care of the rest.

I see giving tax cuts as a good & reliable way to boost the economy while not cutting necessary public services as health care & education. Only through work, enterpreuning and economic growth more welfare can be created for all and more money to be used on public services. Raising taxes is good only for short-term gathering of money but also for directing people's consumption habbits. However giving tax cuts must not be the only way to boost the economy: education & research must always be well-funded, establishing enterprises made more convenient, motivating people to work instead of living on the dole & finding the most effective ways to employ people, to name few means.

I am middle class, so obviously I voted for a tax break on the middle class. But I also think that more money to spend for the consumer class is beneficial to all groups.

In many cases, income tax on the wealthy has no application. Many of the wealthiest people in the western world have no "job" from which income can be taxed. The bulk of their money comes from capital gains. This is why a flat income tax would not work. Most of the rich would not pay any taxes!

Perhaps elliminating the income tax (and the IRS along with it) and reverting to a (much higher) flat sales tax would work. The theory is, the more money you have, the more money you spend, and therefore the more taxes you pay. A flat sales tax would be fair across the board if you ask me.

However flat sales tax at meaningful rate would mean very radical reduction on public services (and even on military) which would hit the low-income people and lower middle-class the hardest. If you set sales tax rate too high, buying basic goods such as food & clothes will be just too expensive for a lot of people.

If people want new tax system in place, they also have to tell where the cuts would come from and what percentage figures we're talking about when it comes to sales tax.

In most places in the US, food (unserved) and certain other necessary goods and services are not taxed. If you consider that there would be no taxes coming out of your paycheck, I think a generous hike in sales tax would not make basic goods too expensive.

I would venture a guess that adding 30-35% to existing state sales tax rates would not require a reduction in public services. Yes, that would make some goods staggeringly more expensive, but once again when you consider the average income would raise by the same percentage, it would not be so bad.

I don't see such a thing as ever happening. However, I cannot think of a more "fair" way of taxing the people.

Well tax cuts are very good but only in certain situations. I would probably place tax cuts on companies and businesses first that way consumers benefit.

our goverment is like Steam, its got good stuff but crashes alot

The Problem with a flat tax is that even though its equal, the poor still get the bad end of the stick. If someone makes 100 dollars a week, and someone makes 10,000 dollars a week, a 5% tax on both of them has a very adverse effect. The poor person now only has $95. This is barely enough for groceries in some cases. The person that makes $10,000 now has $9,500 (Not sure on my math, still summer :P) which is still a lot of money.

Your not going to be able to stretch 100 dollars a week much more then 95 dollars a week. At a ridiculously low income tax level of something between 2% and 5% you're never going to be so poor that the 5% of your check will mean the difference between life and death or between having a home and not having one. Now if we're talking the current tax rate as a flat tax rate then yeah that's gonna be killer but I'm making the assumption that a minimalistic government could operate on a 5% income tax.

Alternatively something like a 5%- 10% sales tax would also be sufficient I would think. As long as the tax doesn't apply to food and water.

According to the Armey-Shelby Tax Reform proposal, if there were to be a flat tax system introduced it would be at a 17% rate across the board with exemption based on family size (a family of 4 would receive a $33,000 exemption for example). The tax on all other income, including interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and business profits, would be withheld and paid at the business level - tax on capital gains and estates would be eliminated.

The Tauzin-Lugar sales tax bill would eliminate the individual and corporate income taxes, along with estate and capital gains tax in favor of a 17.65% national sales tax. Households below the poverty level would receive rebate checks across the course of the year equal to $18,500 worth of taxes (or about $3000). To prevent tax preference for government output, this legislation would place an excise tax on goverment payrolls.

Unfortunately, neither of these plans covers Medicare or Social Security. Those rates would have to be much higher to pay for those. The upside being no more lengthy tax forms or itemizing deductions. The former plan would require a small, post-card sized form to fill out.