I thought I'd throw in a quick 2 cents on this piece with respect to the flat tax. While I'm not necessarily a proponet of it, I do think it has many merits in concept, but the argument offered in this piece is a false argument.

The example they use about defense spending for example states that the rich should pay more, because the rich have more to defend. This piece is about INCOME tax. By definition, the flat tax does exactly what this piece says it doesn't. The "rich" when speaking of INCOME tax would earn more income. Therefore they would pay more tax. If for example someone makes $1,000, and the flat tax rate is 15%, they would pay $150 in tax for that income. Accordingly, someone who makes $1,000,000 in income, would pay the same $150 per $1,000 in tax, or $150,000. So in actuality, the DO pay more. But fairly so, they are paying the same $150 per $1000 for the "defense of their stuff". Is a rich person's $1,000 worth more than a poor person's $1,000?

According to the logic of this piece, a "rich" person should have to pay $300 for defense of his $1000! Why would his $1000 be require twice the protection? Simply because people who argue this way try to garner favor for their arguments through class warfare, and pitting people against people.

What they are actually saying in effect is that people should be taxed on their WEALTH, not their INCOME. If that's what they want, then they should be honest in their argument and not pose it as they do.

And in fact a Flat Tax actually approaches that much better than the current system. In the purest form of the flat tax, there aren't a bunch of loopholes like the current system employs. Under the current system, "wealthy or rich" people can MINIMIZE their income through all sorts of deductions related to their wealth, whereas those who don't have those "wealth deductions" can't. So someone who earns $250K can through loopholes and deductions come to a taxable income of under $100K, while someone who earns $50K likely can't reduce their taxable income by much.

Like I said, the flat tax may not be the ultimate answer, but it sure approaches fairness much better than the current system. Additionally, it would cut out huge bureacracies in government, and create savings and incentive.