Richard Fallstrom wrote:
> In article , Andrew Swallow
>  wrote:
> 
>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>>  Anson Macdonald  wrote:
>>>
>>>> That would certainly be my complaint.  A flat tax is free
of such value 
>>>> judgments, e.g., "Your income is too large."
>>>   Two problems with the flat tax. The one that is worst from a fairness 
>>> standpoint (and even I worry about that a bit), is that the lower the 
>>> income, the higher the percentage of income goes to necessities. To get 
>>> more fairness, then you have to start carving out exemptions
and then we 
>>> are quickly back where we started.
>>>       The other 800 lb pink elephant that everyone is studiously 
>>> ignoring is (are) muni bonds. If you take away the deduction,
then rates 
>>> would have to rise to meet the "regular" rates
businesses and others 
>>> pay. Where would the extra money come from to pay the
increased interest 
>>> costs. (And what happens with mortgage deductions,etc. etc. etc.)
>>>
>> Mortgage deductions etc are what a flat tax is trying to make go away. 
>> A starting point of say $24,000 is easy to operate and disproportionally 
>> helps the poor.
>>
>> The muni bonds paying a normal rate of interest will probably produce a 
>> net saving to the US Government.  Saving schemes are normally used by 
>> people on the highest rate of tax, they are the only ones with spare money.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you saying the poor aren't needful
> of having tax break help?
> 
> Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)
> .
> 
The poor have the same $24,000 tax break everyone else has.

Employer only need to deduct tax when the income exceeds $2,000 in a month.

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32