Taxes

Flat Tax

Pro: Under this tax, all incomes would be taxed at the same rate, 17% under the Forbes Plan, and it is a relatively simply tax. "Flat tax is attractive to many people for its emphasis on work, savings and investing, and fairness".  Only someone's wage would be taxed so any investments, like capital gain, will be left tax free, and few deductions would be allowed, getting rid of any loopholes as well as getting rid of double taxation. The flat tax would exempt those with a lower income in order to save them from paying a higher tax than they do now. By leaving investments alone, more people would be lured to invest, fueling economic growth.It is also simple enough that companies would not need to hire accountants to help them with taxes, and would cut federal spending at the IRS because they would not need as many employees.
Con: This tax would eliminate many deductions, including mortgage tax exemption, making homes depreciate in value and motivate fewer people to purchase a home. It is argued that this tax will actually raise the average tax on the middle and lower class because of the deductions and reduce them on the wealthy. It is possible that it, "Would greatly enlarge the gulf between have and have-nots". It may increase the budget deficit, or it will need to be a higher tax percentage, such as 20%.
I do support this tax system because it seems extremely fair and constitutional, and seems most likely to get rid of many forms of tax avoidance. 

National Sales Tax

Pro: With this tax, a flat percentage of the price of all goods and services would be taxed. It would abolish the IRS, eliminate federal income tax, and allow a rebate for those lower income households that would not have been subject to tax. This tax takes into account the general revenue rate, survivors and disability rate, and hospital insurance rate. The Fair Tax Act proposed a tax only on the purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. It would completely replace the current tax system and not reform it, eliminating federal income tax, social security, medicare, and others. It would simplify the system and taxes would not need to be filed because they would be paid with purchasing goods daily. This could also return a lot of savings to the consumer."By removing the tax on the return to savings and investment, a consumption tax system could result in higher production rates and higher wages". 

Con: This could possibly create a regressive tax system, because the wealthy do not spend as much of their income as lower and middle class do. The actual tax rate itself may be difficult to comprehend and can be a burden on the lower class. The IRS would not be abolished through this plan, due to the rebates, therefore saving the government no money. It is also possible that this tax would charge those who rent their homes to pay a sales tax monthly, where homeowners that own property would not be taxed monthly. There is also a problem shifting to the new system, "Under the new system, older people would essentially have to pay a second large tax on their earnings by being taxed on goods and services during their retirement".
I do not support this system because it would be much more difficult to the lower and middle class to be able spend extra income on a tax on goods and services. 

Value Added Tax

Pro: This is a simple and efficient way of taxing, a consumption tax.It flows through the supply chain and adds to the treasury as it goes. This system works well in other countries such as Japan, Mexico, and France. The tax, "Contributes a substantial share of the government's revenue while remaining neutral for the economic participants". The tax is passed through each part of the supply chain, motivating participants to seek reimbursement by taxing at the next stage. There is a lower chance of tax evasion and the accounting burden is lighter with VAT. It is possible this could replace corporate tax, and could be used to increase tax revenue. It would avoid taxing corporations beyond competitiveness or individuals to a high level. A VAT could get rid of payroll tax, giving consumers more money while also eliminate a common tax avoidance. It could be extremely efficient, not tax savings, easy to administer, and serve as a stimulus.
Con: This places the tax burden entirely on the consumer. It is a regressive tax that is burdensome on the lower and middle class. This tax is not very flexible, consumers have little choice in how to move the money around. It also, "discourages consumption while rewarding investment". It is possible that this tax will greatly increase over the years, and could be placed on top of income and payroll taxes.
I don't support this tax because it essentially is another tax that is going to be placed entirely on the tax payer and does not give the consumers much of a choice in pricing.

Progressive Tax

Pro: This tax would shift the burden off of the lower and middle class, shortening the gap between them and the upper class. This could also prevent political instability and can protect tax payers if their income is to go down. The government can also acquire most of their revenue through this system. This can help reduce the budget by increasing the tax on the upper class. "A progressive system distributes the risks of economic changes by basing a family's tax burden on their ability to pay". Lowering taxes on the wealthy will not usually improve the economy. Cutting this tax will greatly reduce federal revenue and will not help the economy according to the trickle down theory.
Con: This tax would discourage economic growth by burdening the tax payers in higher brackets. Raising these taxes will not effectively cut the deficit and there are not a large enough number to raise revenue. "The economic downturn can not be fixed by the few surviving millionaires into oblivion". This could also discourage businesses to grow or expand, because additional profits will be highly taxed. This tax can also be considered unconstitutional and doesn't treat tax payers fairly. Many of those in the upper class receive income from investments and therefore are not fairly taxed.
I do not support this tax because it has little option to actually assist in fixing the deficit, and it may demotivate people to strive expand their wealth and improve the economy.