BTW, while I agree that a flat 10% tax may be overly simplistic, I have always assumed from arguments that have been advanced advocating a "flat" tax, that there would still exist a base income below which no tax would be payable, so Perry and Deozaan's concerns about the very poor being discriminated against wouldn't, I think, apply. I still dither about whether I agree with the idea, but from my position of ignorance it sounds reasonable

I don't make very much (never have, never will), but I have no problem paying taxes. Taxation makes possible the society in which I live and the freedoms that I enjoy. I like sleeping at night knowing that there is a police force patrolling the city. Services like sewers and paved roads are nice, too. However, what does get my scrotum in a knot is that fact that I pay a great deal more than 2.4% income tax on the peanuts that I earn, and I'm helping to support a family of four. Ultimately, this is one of those discussions to be avoided because good arguments can be made from both sides of the issue (corporations employ lots of people and must be profitable in order to continue to do so, etc.). If I think too hard about it, my head spins - must be a sign of a circular argument!
Apologies for continuing the discussion about taxation rates, etc. Couldn't resist.
PS I note that Jon (jpprater) posted while I pecked this missive out... he's made some interesting points
