anitram said:
What exactly do you mean, no deductions?
Currently, at least in the U.S., you can reduce your income tax burden through a series of deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable donations, etc. So that's why I mentioned that pretty much no one actually pays the income tax percentage, as described for their income level, because there's a dizzying amount of exceptions. And it is those "exceptions" that allow the wealthy and their "creative" accountants to do anything that they can to avoid taxes, whether legally or illegally. Obviously, if it's done "illegally," it's done with the hope that what they've structured is so complicated that no one bothers to investigate.
The flat tax proponents would do just that too, except that they'd have a flat 17% income tax or so. But, as I said before, with upper income people paying around 35% and the poorest paying 8%, it has the net effect of halving the taxes of the wealthy, while more than doubling the taxes of the poor. A "flat, progressive" tax, at least, would simplify, while keeping a basic level of fairness about it.
It was just a thought, at least. I'm not dedicated to this, and I'll be quick to abandon the idea, if I later believe it to be wrong. I just know that the "flat tax," as proposed by the wealthy, is wrong.
Personally, though, I'd like to see property and sales taxes either eliminated or substantially reduced, rather than income taxes. Property taxes are generally more burdensome to middle class folk than income tax, while running completely contrary to the idea of "private property" (don't pay your property taxes, and the government suddenly has the power to seize it, ultimately proving that we truly own nothing and that we're just "leasing" everything from the government), and sales taxes, of course, affect our spending habits, which can have a negative effect on our economy.