Mike, that's if your taxable income is $55,225, not gross adjusted. But that's not the point here is it? The point is that everyone hates paying taxes, and every other person's method is unfair except for our own!

Before I start, I just want to mention something about low income women having kids. In China, you're allowed to have one kid. Yep, one. In Singapore, it's two before you incur penalties. Any other countries? In America, we can have as many as we want. Count this as one of our freedoms. While it may not be sensible to have children if you cannot afford to look after them, it's not in the spirit of our country to enact birthrate legislation nor should it be in our nature to spurn people who have them... no matter what their income level. Send us your poor, your huddled masses... anyone remember THAT?

In my opinion, the flat tax debate is not about who will be affected or fairness. It's a debate about how much money the nation needs in order to function effectively. Yes, a flat tax is possible. In principle, you look at what it costs to run the country and then figure out what percentage to take out of every paycheck. The problem is, just how MUCH money does it take to run the country?

I can tell you right now that it takes too much money to run the nation for a flat tax to work. In 1998, 59 million filers paid about 768 billion in income taxes. That averages to about 13,000 each. According to Mike's numbers, the upper 50 percentile of the taxpayers account for 95% of taxes gathered by the IRS. If that is true, then by my estimates, the flat tax would need to be around 25%. That works out to a $50,000/yr tax burden for those whose taxable income is $200,000/yr. For those making around $100,000 the tax rate doesn't change much, but for those families which only make around $30,000/yr, 25% constitutes a significant increase in tax liability. A 60% increase, or around $3,000! And this doesn't even include social security and other taxes!

Some advocates of the flat tax want a 15% rate for everyone. This is definitely more reasonable that the alternative 25% that I've estimated. But the caveat is we need to cut spending by 40% for the 15% flat tax rate to work. Even at 20%, significant cuts will have to be made. The first to go will be charitable programs and non essential services. Public radio, libraries, welfare, student aid, public education and research, health programs, rural transportation, farm subsidies, sesame street, national forests and parks, space program, environmental research grants, business loans, watershed planning, stuff like that. Then come the bigger cuts. Defense, pension plans, social security, and transportation. If these mean nothing to you then by all means, you are free to support the 15% flat tax. For me, I'd like to keep education, public radio, and my libraries. I'll gladly support a 25% flat tax.

Kuan