Alright, I've been listening in on this tax debate, and I can no longer
resist puting in my say.

From a standpoint of fairness, I suppose we could dicker all day that ones
persons "fair" is another persons "unfair". That's silly, because it is a
cop out to debating the facts of the argument. How do I counter-point to
someones who is satisfied to answer "not everyone is in agreement on what
fair is.". Well, yeah, otherwise there would be no debate! You need to
explain your idea on fair, not just declare it. You need to do this because
this is a matter that involves us all, and I'd at least like to have
evidence that you've thought out your vote since it most certainly cancels
mine out. (By the way, I'm sure you HAVE thought about this, I just want to
hear what you came up with.)

So here is why I think a flat tax (or at least a close approximation) is
"fair".

I am a construction worker with no college education. People far poorer than
me do go to college, and I freely admit that my decision was just that, a
decision. Because of it, it is likely that I will never be qualified for a
really high paying job. I pay x amount of taxes. I'm very much middle middle
class.

Another guy , like me, has no college education, but decides that he needn't
try very hard in life, and is content to wrap happy meals for the rest of
his days. Again, his decision.

ANOTHER guy is a real go-getter. He may or may not have gone to college, but
it doen't matter. He works har, and goes far. Soon he has a very successfull
and large business. His hard work has paid off.

Why is the government entitled to such a large amount of the rich guy's
money, and so small a percentage of mine, and so even MORE small a
percentage of the fast-food worker. What greater services has the
successfull person been given by our government that he needs to pay a
premium.? We reward success with a tax penalty?

Actually, the poor person is far more likely to be taking advantage of the
social programs that the rich guy is paying so much for.

Of course, if there is a possibility that less revenew will be generated if
we went to a flat tax, but does that automatically make it bad? Maybe our
country shouldn't attempt so many social programs until we can afford it.
They are good, but if the money isn't there, then, well.....

And consider this. Bush is commonly accused of giving tax breaks to the
rich, and also for somehow being responsible for the jobless rate. Well,
common sense suggests that the easier we make it for businesses to succeed,
the more jobs will be generated. The bigger (richer?) the business, the more
job generating potential.

But what if we continue as others would have it. How are we to generate more
jobs if we tax the crap out of the job generators. I am unlikely to evr
employ anyone. The only way a tax break causes me to help the economy is by
increasing my ability to buy things, which would slowly help the economy.

I live in Washington. If Boeing were taxed fairly at the same rate I am,
they could no doubt DRASTICALLY drop they're prices. They are capable of
creating thousands of jobs. Jobs mean tax payers. The more thjobs, the more
tax reveniew, and soon it balances out. The liberals have never let Bush
implement his tax ideas properly, and so the crippled versions that pass are
called failures. Well, duh.

But that's just what I think ;-)