On Apr 17, 9:30*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share."
Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so
they would end up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.
The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Why is that a "problem?"

The rich use fewer government services than the poor. The rich don't send
their kids to government schools, use the county hospital, collect rent
suppliments or food stamps. Oh, the rich should pay SOMETHING. After all,
they are driven on public roads and use federal airspace. But the poor use
far more tax-supported services, both absolutely and per capita, so fairness
dictates they pay more.

It's a problem because it shifts more of the tax burden on
those with little or modest incomes. The poor and middle
class would get socked. I have no problem with
a tax system that is graduated to some degree, nor do I
think most people do. Also, those rich people benefitted
from the infrastructure. Shouldn't the rich pay a lot more for
the military to in part, protect their wealth, than the guy
making $10,000?