[Man50D]

I could never understand the ginned-up enthusiasm for this untried measure when the Flat Tax has a long and successful history in a whole slew of countries.

A flat tax on income has a long track record of failing in the U.S. It's called the income tax. It taxed 1% of a person's earnings on the first $20,000 and 7% above $500,000 when enacted in 1913. It was essentially a flat tax since so few people earned more than $20,000 and covered only .5% of the population. Today more than 80% of the population is covered by the income tax and is increasing thanks to the AMT meltdown Congress can't or won't fix.

Another flat tax on income will evolve back into the same oppressive, incomprehensible tax code we have today only faster thanks to the thousands of lobbyists that didn't exist in 1913.

[Nervous Tick]

>> It taxed 1% of a person’s earnings on the first $20,000 and 7% above $500,000 when enacted in 1913. It was essentially a flat tax since so few people earned more than $20,000 and covered only .5% of the population

Huh? That isn’t “essentially” a flat tax. It “is” what it mathematically is! A PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX.

Are you “fair tax” advocates addicted to dissembling? Must you shade the truth with every single point you try to make?