Han wrote:

I am saying that people with less than those amounts in income should
pay less than they do now, and those that have higher incomes should
pay more than they do now.

Stop right there! Why should the rich pay more than the currently pay?
Alternatively, why should the rich pay as much as they currently pay?

In other words, why is a progressive tax scheme a good idea?



What is wrong with a flat tax is, that it isn't. It's a slogan and a
lie. You yourself say that there ought to be a limit to the income
under which no tax is paid. That makes it "unflat". And it makes
taxation implicitly progressive. So there is no reason that an
income of $100,000 should be taxed the same (over the minimum) as an
income of $100,000,000, and no reason a personal income of $1 billion
shouldn't be taxed at even higher rates.

You've got it backwards. There is no logical reason why an income of $1
million should be taxed at a different rate than an income of $25,000. In
point of fact, there is an unassailable reason to tax an income of $1
million at a LESSER rate than incomes below it (the rich use fewer of costly
government services).


That's not what I was trying to say. First eliminate the loopholes
and skewing deductions (we could discuss which ones those should be),
then tax at increasing rates incomes over X, Y, Z, similar to what is
done now. And yes, I am liberal enough to want people who can afford
it to pay more.


Regrettably, removing loopholes is a fool's errand. Taxes are levied, in
addition to the goal of raising money, to foster certain social outcomes
promoted by our betters (home ownership, non-polluting cars, etc.). As long
as our betters think they are our betters, we'll be burdened by someone
else's view of what's good for us.



Fine by me in principle. I would prefer rates of 10, 20, 30, perhaps
even 50% for the highest incomes. For the same reasons you mention.
Everyone should have a stake in these taxes, but lower incomes need a
boost by having lower rates than higher incomes.

Don't you have it backwards? 10% for the rich down to 50% for the less-rich?
Wouldn't that act as an incentive to work harder, earn more, move up?