In article ,
Han wrote:

"
Now how are we going to get that amount from the roughly half of all
filers who now do NOT owe income taxes? Or better, where would they get
that money from?

Which is one reason why taxes won't solve the problem, even amongst the
rich. You could tax the top 5% at 100% and still not cover the deficit,
especially after SS surplus goes away in a year or two. Although one
interesting thing is that most of the 50% (around 40%) of those who
don't owe taxes actually have a negative tax rate because of the money
the get back in things like earned imcome credit, etc.


I really think (and the "socialist" in me agrees) that paying taxes
should be in relation to your ability to contribute. If the income
distribution in the US was much, much more flat, a flat tax (in % of
income, not a set amount) would be defensible, but it isn't.
But neither is the current system where the top 1% pay twice the %age
of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes versus 16.8%
of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't paying their share
when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst off actually have a
NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more than their taxes.




Before we get to the flat tax, let's eliminate the tax loopholes, and we
should first discuss whether charitable contributions, mortgage interest,
state & local taxes should be deductible. After all that's what brought
my income taxes down to less than 14% of AGI.

Yep. Although I can guarantee that won't happen, especially state and
local taxes since the CongressCritters from New York and other high-tax
states would pitch a major bitch, as would the builders and mortgage
types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding out about that
since deductions for taxes and charitable contributions already fade out
above a certain income.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz