FLAT TAX

no not on income or out go spending [sales tax]
or value added

I think a flat tax should be on total wealth only
with everything counted homes land stocks bonds cash art collectables ect

maybe a general exemption on the first 50 to 100k
and a low rate for middle class say 100-500k
and higher rates over a million

why do taxes have to be earnings or spending based
but never touch holdings where the real money is

discuss . . .

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Not sure where 'flat' comes in if there's any exemptions or lowering of rates.

So, if I get you right, you want the Government to come in and assess all of your personal property, annually, so that you have to pay taxes on the value that the Government assigns to said items, regardless of how old they are, or how much you paid for said items originally, or even if you paid for the item over and over again in the form of taxes?

Really?

So I buy a home with money I already paid taxes on, then I pay property tax based on the value, and now you want another tax, isn't that triple taxation?

So you are taxed on posessions? So you never actually fully own anything?

Horrible idea.

As pointed out, with exemptions and brackets, it's not flat.

If it's on property, it encourages a lack of ownership. We would (almost) all be renters, and fewer people (corporations?) would own the properties, thereby driving up their personal/corporate wealth. It might even disincentivise the general upkeep of the properties, thereby lowering the absolute values and, therefore, the tax assessment.

We tax income because, as also already pointed out, we purchase goods and services with money that's already been taxed. We then pay sales tax on much of that, and many things then get taxed again - over and over - such as homes, cars and boats....

just to be clear

you want no tax on billionaires or millionaires
like we have now
only income or sales gains should be taxed
ie the little guys pay
and the ultra rich pay very very little

and that is fair ?

but some one like bill gates with many billions in wealth
will only be taxed if he sells something at a gain

It goes without saying that we are all just passing through this life and that our progeny will either benefit from our life's labors or they will inherit our debt and be forced into slavery to pay back what we borrow.

Taxes serve ONE purpose, pay the ongoing expense of managing our society. To leave debt to our children is immoral.

So...if someone spends his life building and creating something that benefits society (buildings, dams, power stations, a book, a desk, etc) Then that person leaves the house better than he arrived. If he buys land and builds a house, he should be able to leave that to his kids so they can focus their talents on building NEWER things for society. Making better use of the land or using the advantage of having a home and wealth to get a better education or develop other skills. We as a society should not only permit this but encourage it. Likewise, if someone wants to sap the benefits of society without giveing back THEY should not be allowed to keep and maintain property that truly belongs to no one (as we are all transient). Each generation has both a responsibility to maintain and grow, as well as a right to give it to someone who can in return for their freedom to live like a bum and party on.

The disconnect we have in society now with relation to this natural dynamic is that taxation is currently designed to both discourage people from producing AND to make it impossible for successive generation to explore their full potential because they are expected to start from scratch.

Taxation is a necessary evil. We need to have standing armies, we need trade negotiations with other nations, we need laws and courts. We should NOT have the ridiculous amount of government funding in non-sense like grants, health care, education, etc. These should ALL be private. but that is another thread.

Taxation should reward and encourage growth, productivity, and education advancement. It should discourage lethargy, ignorance, and stagnation.

No one man benefits more from our standing armies than does any other. If a man is content to sit in a tent all his life while another man spends 5 years of back breaking work to build his dream house, the man who builds should NOT be punished with heavy taxation lest we ALL just sit around in tents.

Tent dwellers should be incentivised to grow and build by seeing THEIR fair share reduced with each new task they take on. This is NOT the case at the moment. 50% of Americans pay no tax and are not incentivised to do anything different.

We need a tax system that stops punishing producers and incentivizes non-producers to get busy!

quote Originally posted by Toddster: ...

Yeah, what he said...!

To elucidate a bit, Ray, and riff off Todd's post - WE NEED TO STOP SPENDING!!! We especially need to stop spending on credit.

Get rid of entitlement programs. Ditch Obamacare, and wean all others off all other programs that are not expressly called for in the Bill of Rights. Keep Social Security for those that have paid into it all their lives, then, when the time comes that that generation is no more, reimburse the rest of us that paid into it for part of our working life. Get rid of Welfare. Give states the option to pick up the slack. Or, we could do what has been done for thousands of years before we got here - take care of our own d@mn families. Stop giving (Federal) money to public schools to bribe them into teaching sex ed and other questionable topics. Let us (each city or town) decide what's best for our own kids. Let companies form to fill niches and grow and thrive - continuing to be the largest (collective) employer, rather than filtering all retail/industry/banking/etc through a few national or multinational corporations. And there's probably a bunch of other government crap that I can't even think of that's come about since the New Deal.

It might be hard to deal with for a while, but so is coming off a cocaine habit. Or so I'm told.

[This message has been edited by Patrick's Dad (edited 09-08-2011).]

The 'rich' already pay the bulk of the taxes. If you really want to 'stick it' to the so-called 'rich', then a consumption based tax is the only way to do it. By and large, the 'rich' purchase much more than the middle class or poor. You have to do it across the board, though, as if you have a 'luxury tax', the 'rich' will simply not purchase those items. (Research the luxury tax that was tried and failed, as it completely killed businesses that produce luxury items).

So, yes, only income (whatever that means) and sales tax, and make it truly 'flat'. Wait, what would we need those THOUSANDS of IRS workers for then?

But what is income? Why should I be taxed on my labor? It is an exchange of goods. My sweat for monetary compensation. I have given a portion of my life. Certainly not 'income', as I have given something of worth in exchange.

I don't understand why you want to 'punish' the rich so much. I do understand that there are some very unscrupulous rich persons and corporations out there. But that exists at all levels of income or poverty. So, what are you hoping to accomplish? 'Fairness'? 'Fairness' only works in fairy tales, and has nothing to do with income or net-worth.

quote Originally posted by ray b: just to be clear you want no tax on billionaires or millionaires like we have now only income or sales gains should be taxed ie the little guys pay and the ultra rich pay very very little and that is fair ? but some one like bill gates with many billions in wealth will only be taxed if he sells something at a gain

pat's pop

''It might be hard to deal with for a while, but so is coming off a cocaine habit. Or so I'm told.''

back in the day if you quit pheno-barb's cold turkey
you could die and many did
teapuppets plan is more like that
risk reward factors seam to plum elude the nut-cons
they see what their dogma demands
but not a bit of the big risks of the downside they are willing to gambol with
and of course have no back up plan when inevitable failure happens
because of their dogma !!!!!!!!!!


wealth not income is the true marker

How about we eat the rich?

quote Originally posted by dsnover: The 'rich' already pay the bulk of the taxes. If you really want to 'stick it' to the so-called 'rich', then a consumption based tax is the only way to do it. By and large, the 'rich' purchase much more than the middle class or poor. You have to do it across the board, though, as if you have a 'luxury tax', the 'rich' will simply not purchase those items. (Research the luxury tax that was tried and failed, as it completely killed businesses that produce luxury items). So, yes, only income (whatever that means) and sales tax, and make it truly 'flat'. Wait, what would we need those THOUSANDS of IRS workers for then? But what is income? Why should I be taxed on my labor? It is an exchange of goods. My sweat for monetary compensation. I have given a portion of my life. Certainly not 'income', as I have given something of worth in exchange. I don't understand why you want to 'punish' the rich so much. I do understand that there are some very unscrupulous rich persons and corporations out there. But that exists at all levels of income or poverty. So, what are you hoping to accomplish? 'Fairness'? 'Fairness' only works in fairy tales, and has nothing to do with income or net-worth.

wealth tax replaces income tax NOT in addition to the income tax instead of it

punish or make a fair tax on those who have the most
and will feel the tax the least as they have the most

nut - conned flat tax hurts the poor the most
and reduces the rich's tax share [ that is wrong ]

my tax hits those with the most

What's a matter oh rabid one? Can't handle the truth even if it is parroted? If you actually viewed the videos I posted you will see the flaws in your 'flat tax' idea. You don't seem to understand the concepts of wealth and taxation too well and are extremely jealous of those who have more than you. Why else would you want government to take it away from them to give it to you? Remember that coveting your neighbors possesions is a sin. Remember, a government strong enough to give you anything you want can also take away anything it wants.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 09-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: avengador1 can you think for yourself ever ???????? or must you only parrot nut-con crappp by cut and paste

Thought this was a discussion, not so you could spew more class warfare and the neocon crap if someone doesn't go along.
You and the president are cut from the same mold..
Can't wait for his speech, or "Talking To" from him tonight.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 09-08-2011).]

why is income tax or sales tax more fair or just then a wealth tax

many states have some kind of stuff tax a personal property or intangibles tax
all I am aware of have real estate taxes
most states tax biz equip and machines too

avengador1 tends to only cut and pasted for extreme nut-com sites
and seldom debate or even post his thoughts
just nut-com spam

Because wealth is maintained, as long as it is tended to properly. Why keep taxing the same money, over and over and over.

I also agree, but maybe I am biased, as to, why are the fruits of my labors taxed?

I find myself leaning more an more to a consumption tax. Rich people, in theory, consume more, so they, as now, consume more. My family consumes much, as four kids are doing nothing but consuming us out of house and home.... Still, the rich get their Benzos, and I've got my 16yo Saturn.

quote Originally posted by ray b: I think a flat tax should be on total wealth only with everything counted homes land stocks bonds cash art collectables ect discuss . . .

Are we talking once or yearly? Why should I have to pay tax on "wealth" I was already taxed on?

Think of it this way. If I have 10k in a bank and it's taxed at 10% then I would pay 1k in taxes. Now I have 9k. So say I earn/amass nothing will I then be taxed another 10% the following year on the 9k remaining? So then I pay 900 in tax and have 8.1k remaining. The next year samme senario and I pay 810 tax and so on. We are constitutionally protected from double taxation (supposedly) so how could this tax scheme be justified as constitutional? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your intent?

I mean really, this could hurt those who are retired and no longer earning wealth, but using the wealth they earned to live out their remaining years.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 09-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: why is income tax or sales tax more fair or just then a wealth tax many states have some kind of stuff tax a personal property or intangibles tax all I am aware of have real estate taxes most states tax biz equip and machines too avengador1 tends to only cut and pasted for extreme nut-com sites and seldom debate or even post his thoughts just nut-com spam

1, This plan is neither flat nor fair. There should be no free rides in this country, and this plan would generate millions more free riders than are currently here.

2. It will breed mediocrity. Everyone will cease striving for gains as soon as they reach the threshold of the tax cutoff.

3. 100s of thousands won't be able to pay those taxes and will forfiet their physical possessions to the federal govt--a govt that is already looking for ways to divest itself of billions of $$ worth of physical assets.

4. There's no way to assess a value fairly accross the nation. A piece of realestate that might be valued @ $500,000 in NYC ain't worth squat elsewhere. (relatively speaking anyway)

5. In 5 years, the govt would default with this plan because it simply won't generate enough tax revenue to run the govt. According to the CBO, even if ALL Bush era tax cuts were rescinded, we will still be running unsustainable deficits for the next 20 years--and that's with virtually everyone paying taxes.

I'm in favor of taxing debt myself.

quote Originally posted by ray b: why is income tax or sales tax more fair or just then a wealth tax many states have some kind of stuff tax a personal property or intangibles tax all I am aware of have real estate taxes most states tax biz equip and machines too avengador1 tends to only cut and pasted for extreme nut-com sites and seldom debate or even post his thoughts just nut-com spam

why? seriously? you have to freaking ask that? You want to tax people just because they have something you don't have? wealth? SERIOUSLY? One of the ONLY reasons we are even HERE AS A FREAKING COUNTRY was because of Taxation with out representation, ohh we need to spend this lets just tax someone because they have the money. An small child could figure out that is wrong. And I don't know where you are getting your information but the top 10% of people pay over 60% of the taxes in this country. so out of the box your tax proposal is invalid. You know you want to discuss something but when someone doesn't agree with you and says that it is wrong to take something that isn't yours on the basis of you have it you start calling them derogatory names, last time I checked that's not a debate.

Ray its not a crime to own things, one gains wealth my working and saving.
People who have more money than someone else are not inherently worse people, they didn't take it from someone else.
There is not a finite amount of wealth in the world and if someone has more you have less.

quote avengador1 tends to only cut and pasted for extreme nut-com sites and seldom debate or even post his thoughts just nut-com spam

OK rabid one, please explain how would the government pay off our debt when it is larger than all the wealth the nation can generate. We can "eat the rich" to pay of this years debt, but once they are gone how do you pay all future debts? Government spending never ends, even if it is paid off, that is why they need to cut spending until it is manageable. What would happen to you if you lived above your income? How long would you last? How would you pay off your debt then? You might be able to file for bankruptcy but it's a lot harder for the government to do the same.
Read this article and learn.
http://townhall.com/columni...-government_spending

So you want to tax "wealth?"
You mean to say if you make $50,000 this year you now have $50,000 in wealth to pay tax on, right?
Now, next year you don't make any money, but you still have $20,000 left over from the previous year, so you're going to pay tax on that the following year, right?

Or do you think people can make as much as they want and not pay taxes as long as they don't accumulate any wealth? Ok, no problem, everyone just starts renting everything so they don't own it = no taxes.

why do you guys repeatedly claim I want something from some one
or that I hate the rich or do not understand them

I grew up in a upper class world
country and yacht clubs
the detroit house was on the lake
before that we lived in grosse point
the house across the street was by frank lloyd wright
guys like the owner of the phantom corsair came by
we wintered in miami all winter every year

my best friend was worth 20 million when he passed
his grand dad started what became astro-zenica
please keep you BS speculation to yourself

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: why do you guys repeatedly claim I want something from some one or that I hate the rich or do not understand them I grew up in a upper class world country and yacht clubs the detroit house was on the lake before that we lived in grosse point the house across the street was by frank lloyd wright guys like the owner of the phantom corsair came by we wintered in miami all winter every year my best friend was worth 20 million when he passed his grand dad started what became astro-zenica please keep you BS speculation to yourself

ok either your a moron or you're just intentionally trying to argue. because your proposal is EXACTLY that, taking from someone else because they have it. so tell me, If I got a job tomorrow that makes 250K a year, and since I don't like real estate companies and I want to actually own my own home I want to sit on my money for a year or so to pay off the house all together. I would be classified as rich, and taxed by your "flat tax" system. And because I have 2 cars, my daily driver and my fiero, I would be taxed on that "wealth" then the music equipment that I have acquired over the past 13 years. Then I would be taxed on the 7.5 acres that my house sits on, then the music building that I have, then all the personal equipment that I have for entertainment such as TV's, PS3's, DVD players, the Pictures that I have the Equipment that I have in my house right now for general life like stoves and my washer and dryer and refrigerator.

At current rates I would have to pay 67,397 dollars to the government on just my income alone, which since you want to implement this "flat tax" (which for the record is NOT a flat tax, I don't think you even understand what that term means) that wouldn't be enough because I'm only paying in 67K of my 250K. so then your "flat tax" becomes a little more progressive, and then I'm still paying on all the other "wealth" that I have, which what would be the percentage of that? 10% of the value? so I would have to have everything appraised every year and pay 10% on the value? well depending on which appraiser you have value of land goes up and down frequently, but lets just say for shits and giggle here that we take the average cost of land in my area per acre, which is 5750/acre so that comes to 43,125 that is taxable so about 4,312.50 in taxes on that, then the home that I want to build, we will say that since I want to save for a year and I've all ready been taxed on my "wealth" that leaves me with 182,603 left to build me a house so I build a house on it that is 150K, so I would have to pay 15,000 at 10% or 7,500 on 5% and we still haven't even got to the other things your "flax tax" would tax on.

My cars haven't been figured in, so that would drive down how much I could spend on building me a home for me and my family, then all the appliances in the house, then food, water, energy, clothing, school costs now I've went from a 150K dollar home on 7.5 acres to 125K just to pay all the taxes on my "wealth" that I have. To be honest I believe that you grew up in a rich neighborhood because you have no grasp on reality when it comes down to economics. You can't continue to raise taxes in order to achieve higher tax revenue. Do some real research, read a book, have a mind for your own except for what you've heard and then berate anyone who doesn't agree with you. First step would be to at least find out what flat tax ACTUALLY is, because as it stands right now your "definition" of a flat tax isn't even CLOSE to what the REAL definition is. A flat tax would be like everyone pays 20 cents on every dollar they make, so the rich would pay the same amount as the poor regardless how much they make. But by your definition the rich should be taxed MORE than the rich so what the poor pays 2 cents on every dollar and the rich pay 49c on every dollar? that's isn't a flat tax. but this is on income alone you want EVERYTHING not just income you want to tax everything that they have. With all of that being said, don't start a "discussion" where people discuss and don't agree with you if you can't take the criticism. Stop calling people names just because they disagree, its childish.

unfortunately - there is no such thing as a flat tax or a fair tax. just isnt.

the closest thing to a fair or flat tax is everyone pays $XXX to live int he USA. everyone pays the exact same amount.
obviously - this cannot work. most people dont make enough. next is to tax based on use. and that is highly subjective. could "the wealthy" become wealthy without the support of Police to catch theives & courts to enforce contracts & ownerships? Some could. in other lands, we call them warlords. Civilization aint cheap. and, Civilization is what we are after, isnt it?

Support the system which lets you thrive. once again - "the wealthy" have taken in record $$$. dont forget to tip your servers.

Democrats: ‘Do As We Say, Not As We Do’
http://godfatherpolitics.co...we-say-not-as-we-do/

quote I’m sure all of you have heard a parent or someone in authority say, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ Ever since Obama took office and the Democrats took control of the Senate, that’s been their mantra, even if not spoken out word-for-word. In the latest example, President Obama starting urging Congress (House and Senate) to work together to pass bills that created jobs and spurred the economy. It was obvious that his comments were directed at Republicans when he said: “These are common-sense ideas — ideas that have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The only thing holding them back is politics. The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That’s the problem right now. That’s what’s holding this country back. That’s what we have to change… We’re coming through a terrible recession; a lot of folks are still looking for work. A lot of people are getting by with smaller paychecks or less money in the cash register. So we need folks in Washington — the people whose job it is to deal with the country’s problems, the people who you elected to serve — we need them to put aside their differences to get things done.” So how bi-partisan are the Democrats willing to be? Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor sent President Obama a letter reminding him that the House has passed a dozen bills that would spur job creation and the economy. However, the Democrats in the Senate have refused to even consider all but one of the House measures. This is typical of the Democrat’s hypocritical ways ever since the Republicans regained control of the House last year. The Democrats scream and yell that the other kids don’t want to share and play fair, when in fact they are the ones guilty of the very thing they are accusing the others of. ‘Do as we say, not as we do.’ The tried and true, proven mantra of the Democratic Party.

Sounds like the rabid one is a dyed in the wool democrat.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Democrats: ‘Do As We Say, Not As We Do’ http://godfatherpolitics.co...we-say-not-as-we-do/ Sounds like the rabid one is a dyed in the wool democrat.

lol - yes - alot like the cry about "the debt" when it is republicans which endlessly add to it....
any chance any republican is ever gonna pony up that first penny for the Iraq War? any chance? even pay a penny of it?.....didnt think so....

------------------

1985 Fiero SE - Plain Red 3.1 V6 Coupe
Engle18Cam DIS 4.10-4spd 7730 WCF Long Tubes Borla
D.A.M.M. - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

Nothing ever will work if there are any kind of exemptions. Lawyers for the rich will find ways to use any loopholes. Like if you make a million dollars and have 4 kids, you can just divide up your income to show as 6 incomes, thus no taxes. I still say best is a national sales tax on what you spend period. Everything you buy has that tax whether its a gallon of gas or a yacht. Rich who spend a lot will pay the most obviously. Even if they get their kid to buy something, he still pays the same sales tax. I dont see any loopholes except if your able to buy something cheaper thus paying lower tax.

quote Originally posted by ray b: why do you guys repeatedly claim I want something from some one or that I hate the rich or do not understand them I grew up in a upper class world country and yacht clubs the detroit house was on the lake before that we lived in grosse point the house across the street was by frank lloyd wright guys like the owner of the phantom corsair came by we wintered in miami all winter every year my best friend was worth 20 million when he passed his grand dad started what became astro-zenica please keep you BS speculation to yourself

I don't see a single thing there that describes your personal finances. I'm surrounded by people who all make 6 figures, that says nothing about me personally. You could be a pauper for all we know, just 'cause your parents and best friend are wealthy doesn't mean you have 2 dimes to rub together. You could still be a welfare queen, you would just happen to know some of the people whose marrow you're sucking. It would certainly explain a lot about your class envy, surrounded by people who have stuff you could never afford.

I agree John. I know plenty of people with lots of money. Some of them are still a-holes. I also have a couple of friends who are homeless guys who live in a car wash bay next to me . I usually find the best friends are ones who dont know what you have.

quote Originally posted by ray b: in fla none now on fiero's except tags I am talking about fed tax not states tax most states tax some forms of wealth now

English ray, English. It's hard enough to understand what you mean when I can read your posts.

Fine, Federal tax. But if it's on wealth, your Fiero is an item of wealth, so how much tax are you proposing to pay on it every year.
Any state tax would be in addition to this.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I agree John. I know plenty of people with lots of money. Some of them are still a-holes. I also have a couple of friends who are homeless guys who live in a car wash bay next to me . I usually find the best friends are ones who dont know what you have.

Well, the other side of the coin is, assuming he *does* have money, then given he was born to it, then it also explains his position, as he would have no respect for it if he didn't have to earn it. I think of my sister, who *just* landed a job making about 6 figures. I was saying to Lori the other night that I'm pretty envious of her. I've worked hard all my life and tried to do the right things and I've never come close to making that kind of money. Lori pointed out that while I've been self employed, I've enjoyed freedoms and benefits that she didn't have. She worked for years and years, sucking it up doing what other people told her to do, and being knocked down and kicked in the teeth over and over, and kept getting up and going to work. After all that time she gained the experience and knowledge to be able to pitch herself to an international company in a high paying position. She sacrificed and worked and lived at poverty level for 15 years (working the whole time and never taking a dime of assistance btw), and finally scored big. And now some liberal asswipe comes along and thinks just because she's suddenly making decent coin that she should support some other asswipe who wasn't willing to put in the time and energy to gain their own wealth? That's just bullshit, and it pisses me off just to think about it.

That is a wealth tax. It has a number of drawbacks:

1. The government will search your house and rifle through all of your belongings to assess how much they are worth. This clearly violates the 4th Amendment.
2. It is very easy to hide things from the government to get around being taxed on them.
3. The government's assessment of the value of your belongings is arbitrary and leaves the door wide open to corruption.


.

------------------

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - yes - alot like the cry about "the debt" when it is republicans which endlessly add to it.... any chance any republican is ever gonna pony up that first penny for the Iraq War? any chance? even pay a penny of it?.....didnt think so....

PLEASE tell me you are joking.

quote Originally posted by ray b: nut - conned flat tax hurts the poor the most

Uhh....hmmm, more jobs...they keep more of their income each paycheck...lower inflation so food, gas, and rent are lower....OK, I give up. Why is it worse for the poor?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Uhh....hmmm, more jobs...they keep more of their income each paycheck...lower inflation so food, gas, and rent are lower....OK, I give up. Why is it worse for the poor?

Care to elaborate on that please? Or maybe explain your idea of a flat tax? To most that implies a certain percentage applied to your income and that's what you pay. So explain how paying 10% on 25k is less then paying 10% on 25k - 11.4k (married tax deduction) - 950 x however many dependants (lets say 2 for this example). So after deductions the adjusted income would be 11.7k. 10% of 25k= 2,500 where as 10% of 11.7k = 1,170. I don't know, looks like a flat tax would cost lower income earners more in taxes, but like I asked, your idea of a flat tax may be different then what most think when they hear flat tax.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 09-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: Care to elaborate on that please? Or maybe explain your idea of a flat tax? To most that implies a certain percentage applied to your income and that's what you pay. So explain how paying 10% on 25k is less then paying 10% on 25k - 11.4k (married tax deduction) - 950 x however many dependants (lets say 2 for this example). So after deductions the adjusted income would be 11.7k. 10% of 25k= 2,500 where as 10% of 11.7k = 1,170. I don't know, looks like a flat tax would cost lower income earners more in taxes, but like I asked, your idea of a flat tax may be different then what most think when they hear flat tax.

A flat tax is not income based.

At least most aren't. Some variations published by different economists and think tanks still base it on income but most do not.

edit to clarify

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 09-09-2011).]