I guess I am unclear about what your issue is with my argument. Are you saying that with a flat tax the poor would be taxed on all their money because all of their money is spent on food clothing and shelter?
If so, I agree. I am of the opinon that when you run a flat tax you definitely favor the wealthy and/or higher income tax brackets. They pay a bigger burden, sure, but the amount left over is more than adequate. I thought I was clear in saying that there should be _no_ taxes on income, earned or un-earned. No income tax means that the poor person who currently pays withholding at 10% (figures are used for example, not representative of actual figures) would have still have that money. Likewise, the people paying 25% would have that money back in their pockets as well. Now whether those people choose to save a little bit of that money or not, is up to them. They should be given the opportunity. If they take it, good, if not, then, well... one can only do so much. So, how then would the government get the funds required? Sales tax. Food, clothing, cars, houses, etc. would be taxed, just like they are today. You are taxed on consumption. Not on income. > the problem with that though is that people who are eking out a living really > don't have the -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:200587 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
