Well written Shocker. You make some great points!

Shock did make some good points. If anyone remembers, oh so long ago, was that my objection that the underlying attitude is that if you DON'T make a lot of money you are lazy or stoooopid. This was my problem with it all along.

At any rate, I like Rkz idea of a flat tax. This means flat tax...no high paid tax preparers finding loopholes to save the rich thousands of dollars, and no reward for popping out babies to afford the poor a giant refund of money which they did not initially pay.

So, you see, I am really for equality for the masses, not just those who can afford it, not just those who have the knowledge to fudge it, and not just those who play the system and reap the benefits of people like me: the middle class.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: the middle class is disappearing, and a country without a middle class cannot sustain itself.

Can I ask a question about flat tax please.

If you want everyone to pay the same rate of tax, does that mean you'll raise it a bit for the lower incomes and lower it for higher?

If that's the case, and your country already has massive poverty problems associated with minimum wage earners etc, how do you think that will be recieved?

They would be just as much in control of a flat tax, and just as able to put in loopholes, but the poor still wouldn't, and now they'd be paying more.

Thats' why it will never, ever, ever get anywhere within a thousand miles of even being considered.
It would wreck the whole system and ruin millions of people's lives. Some things look good "on paper" . . .

That makes no sense... The poor would pay less in taxes than they do now.
Most poor pay most of their taxes in sales tax and would pay less due to having less income and the poor and middle class are those who support the flat tax the most when it is discussed.
It is the rich, who would end-up paying the most in increases because of the elimination of loopholes and shelters, who fight it and put the most spin against it during those discussions.
Because something is difficult does not mean one does not try. As a Libertarian, all I believe in is an uphill battle. This past election shows that many things one does not believe is possible are often just around the corner.
NOTHING is impossible as long as one never gives in to that pathetic word for losers.
A flat tax is a "Flat Tax"... there are no loopholes, 2% or 10%, that is IT, no matter WHAT, come Armageddon, cancer, three arms, the boogie man or a "religious institution".
Income is income or paying for something is paying for something, end of story.
Again, I don't care how you do it. (yes that includes your kids damn education, your housing and food, etc, etc, etc...)

Whilst we in the UK have a sliding scale for income tax, we also have a huge number of tax allowances, concessions, tax-credits & rebates etc. And although I am a committed socialist, I too favour the concept of a flat-rate tax.

10% - 15% of income (earned or otherwise). No allowances, consessions, tax-write-offs. Not only would it generate as much as the present system it would save on all those civil servants in the Inland Revenue whose sole duty it is to check all those allowances....

Oh, and I would apply it to corporations too....

(back in the 70's, it was said that, because of clever use of tax avoidance schemes, the secretaries at Shell UK headquarters paid more in tax than Shell UK itself did)

Oh, I agree, any corp/sports team/etc that pays a salary to anyone = fair salary.
No one has a right to say squat.

It is the height of ignorance and envy to bitch about what someone else makes.

Wouldn't that still make it difficult for someone to break out of a poverty cycle though?

Please explain how.

I'm asking the question. Don't you think it would make it harder for someone to actually get ahead in your country, knowing what your health care system is like just for starters.

That has nothing to do with revamping our tax system... OT red herring.

In my above statement I showed how it would make it easier for the poor to do better under a flat-tax system.

In theory your system seems good rkz, but I don't think it would work in practice for reasons like health care etc.

Maybe it would though. You could be right.

Please tell me how health care has anything to do with this?

health care is expensive. If it's not subsidised by the government then how will low wage earners afford it? Work it out for yourself rkz. You're talking about taking away a lot of funding for things like health care, vet care, aged care, roads, parks and wildlife etc.

Where do you think the money for that comes from? Do you think people are going to say, 'oh yeah, and I've got to go spend some money on that park down the street today, even though my son is sick and needs medication.'