great. show us the numbers from an un-biased source.

The current tax system is unfair because rich people get away with paying less than they should, through deductions and shelters, etc..

The flat tax would be unfair because the middle class would be paying more than they are now, and rich people would be paying less (in some cases).

The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more. What's not to understand about that? Seems simple enough to me. They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

The only fair system is where everyone pays the same and additionally there should be a tax on all purchases.

How much 'should' they pay, and why?

Someone please define "Rich People". Thank you.

Consider the source to be the Univeristy of Common Sense.

There are two general approaches to the flat tax - tax on sales or tax on wages.

A flat sales tax of approx. 25% would have a more adverse impact on the dispoasl income of a person of $30,000 income as opposed to $3 million income - common sense.

A flat tax on wages generally excludes non wage income (capital gains) and would have a more adverse impact on the disposal income of a person making $30,000 (with nearly all of it from wages) as opposed to a person making $ 3million (with a large portion excluided from the tax as non-wage ,capital gains) - common sense

I share the opinoin of that capitalist that the free market guys always love to point to when it comes to deregulation, but not taxes - Adam Smith:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion....

But I accept that "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder and we willl never agree on this one.

That, is not, an unbiased source. That is opinion.

I've said it before but I'll say it again... cuz I can. My personal idea for flat tax really isn't flat but much flatter.

Every single dollar of income (earned and unearned) up to and including $50,000 is taxed at 1%. I believe everyone should know they are paying something even if it is a seemingly insignificant amount.

Every single dollar earned and unearned over$50,001 is taxed at 20%. NO deductions, no loopholes, no limits.

Personal tax returns will consist of a one page, easy to understand form.

INCOME:
INCOME IN EXCESS OF $50,000:

The guy making $30K will have paid $300 which is more than he's paying now, but he is now paying like everyone else.

The guy making $50K will be paying $500 which is less than some people say they are paying now.

The guy making $90K will be paying $8,499.80 which is 9% of total pay.

The guy making $900K will be paying $170,499 which is 19% of total pay.

The guy making $9,000,000 will pay $1,790,499.80 which is 20%. While that may seem like they are getting a bargain it is a hell of a lot more than they are paying now.

And added up, we would have much more in income collected. Flaten the tax, everyone pays, close the loopholes.

Got a cite for that...or is it just fuzzy math?

I have not seen any reliable source that would suggest a flat tax at a 20% rate of wages (with or w/o non-wage income like capital gains) would come close to covering even the basic current costs of defense, payment on debt and entitlements (combined nearly $2 trillion/year)...and that excludes any discreationary spending on domestic programs.

Do you believe the "rich" are paying more significantly more than that, on average?

Are there any real statistics or is this really just a argument in futility?

We're talking about the government. Only arguments of futility are possible.

It does go back to my thread asking the purpose of taxes though. If we don't know the total number of dollars the government needs to do its business and we aren't trying to match those numbers with an appropriate income level, then all the tax rates are just arbitrary numbers established for psychological reasons.

not psychological at all. - They are then numbers based upon what they WANT to spend not what they need. Thats what it all comes down to in my opinion. The debate between the definition of needs versus wants.

I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.

I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."

But I am a Washington insider.