On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:19:15 -0500, Jim Fisher wrote:

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
The answer is the flat tax.

I used to be in favor of that but the problem is that a flat tax is, in
fact, a regressive tax. Yeah, I know everyone pays the same percentage but
$200.00 a year to someone making $10,000.00 a year is still a lot while
$2000.00 a year to someone making a hundred grand really isn't that much.

A national sales tax is a much more-better idea. You buys lots of stuff?
You pays The Man. This would also encourage folks to save instead of
spending more than they make. . . . Aw hell, I wasn't gonna even reply to
this silly thread but couldn't help it. I'm going to bed before I get wound
up.

Well, even with a flat tax, the IRS wouldn't be going anywhere. At best,
it would be greatly reduced in size. For those that are below the poverty
line, other ammendments, refunds and services can be provided to offset
anything they paid as part of a flat tax program. In fact, many of these
services are already available today. I've heard this argument used time
and time again. It never holds water. A flat tax system is by far, the
most fair and easiest methods of collecting taxes.

Even if I had to pay any extra two or three hunded dollars a year in
taxes, it would easily be offset by the amount that I already pay in
having my taxes done. Last I heard, if a flat tax program were to be
implemented, the average American would pay +-500 dollars within what they
currently pay. That means some of us would actually do better. Others
would do slight worse. In either case, not having to pay for taxes
services would certainly help to offset the difference.