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
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32