The Daring Dufas wrote:

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.


What's fair for one is thought to be unfair to another. One proposal is the
"flat" tax.

I have a better proposal that everybody can get behind.

I propose a "flat-flat tax." Here's how it works. Assume the national budget
is $3 trillion and
that there are 300 million folks in the country. Each person, then, is
responsible for $10,000. That's their tax. Period. End of discussion.

There are problems associated with this plan, I admit. For example, what
about the poor person who doesn't HAVE $10,000?

Well, he could contribute one unit of blood platelets per month and get a
$1,000 credit toward the current tax year - sort of like withholding.

But, you say, what about the poor single mother who has four kids under the
age of six? We can't drain FIVE units of blood from her each month and
certainly we aren't going to vampire the toddlers! Absolutely correct. She's
responsible for the taxes on her children, but we can't take that much
blood. It would be silly to even contemplate such. What she CAN contribute
is a kidney. A kidney is worth about $100,000 on the open market. That, plus
the platelets, would mean her family's taxes would be paid for about three
years.

Now I know what you're thinking. After three years, what? Do we take her
OTHER kidney? No, silly person... we insist she donate a cornea. That should
be good for another three or four years, by which time her litter will be
off having babies of their own and her tax liability would fall back to the
normal range. In the event the kids aren't out having babies or selling
crack, we then fall back to liver aliquots or bone marrow.

This plan has several subordinate benefits. First it discourages having
children on the dole, cause momma has to have her teeth extracted for
transplantation. Secondly, it encourages marital fidelity since a two-income
family can better afford the taxes.

Absent approval of the foregoing, the "fairest" tax is the
"anti-progressive" tax. That is, rich people should pay a smaller percentage
of their income than the lower classes since they use fewer government
services. The well-to-do should pay SOMETHING - after all they do benefit
from the protection our military affords and they do drive (or are
chauffeured) on public roads. But they don't (generally) use public
hospitals, public schools, or get free treatment for VD. They don't use
public libraries or public parks (they have their own). No, the rich don't
use a proportionate amount of public services, so they should pay only what
their class consumes.

As an aside, I sent both these ideas to George McGovern back when he was
running for president. Just like all politicians, he didn't even deign to
respond. One day I'll tell you my plan for integrating the schools. He
evidently didn't like that plan either. Bad McGovern.