I think it is important that the ORIGINAL arguments in favor of tax progressivity be clearly developed --- Virtually EVERYONE who supports what they call a "flat tax" believes there ought to be a ZERO bracket -- that is, a level of income FREE of taxation so that no one in poverty pays income tax on their poverty level wages. Thus, the argument in favor of progressivity is already SOMEWHAT conceded by even those who support a flat tax. Then we get to the question of whether INCOME ABOVE POVERTY should be subjected to one rate or rising rates. The basis of the progressivity argument here is the intensity of the need for the income as you are close to the poverty level. The whole point of "ability to pay" as a principle of taxation is that one can afford to part with a higher percentage of your income because as your income goes up, the PERCENTAGE you're spending on necessities shrinks, the percentage you're spending on luxuries goes up. A single rate would tax a higher percentage of the income needed for necessities of the near poor and lower middle class than it would of the rich --- only escalating rates with approximate EQUAL taxation on "non necessity income" This is somewhat complicated but it really is an important point. One must somehow illustrate the RISING ability to pay taxes as incomes rise. Another point: "flattening" the tax rates to a single rate over a zero braket means a TAX BOOST for the lower middle class who are barely above poverty. all the best, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
