>>>>>I think those who have more have an obligation to carry more of the burden of these common costs, so I believe in progressive taxation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Clearly, in the scenario, family 3 is going to come out much better all around, but a well-structured tax system (and that's not what we have now) will ask them to pay a higher proportion of income than the guy in the middle. The one at the bottom should be paying nothing or a token amount (because people value what they pay for more than what they get for free).
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Ok, I don't have a lot of argument with that, as long as the progressive tax is based on gross, and not net of loopholes and tax shelters. However, I think a flat tax, being much simpler, would have a much better chance of being administered properly, and as such would be more likely to work smoothly.
>>>
>>>I'm close to agreeing with you, except that I can see too many situations where gross income is a terrible misrepresentation, such as a family with a seriously disabled child (and I know several of them). Now, of course, if our society operated as it should, having a disabled child or someone with a serious illness wouldn't be a huge financial burden, but at least in the US today, it is. (Seems to me I've read that medical expenses are one of the largest causes of personal bankruptcy.)
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>I sometimes wonder just how apocryphal is the story of the person who, after heart surgery, gets the hospital bill and has a heart attack.
>
>There's a big news story over here at the moment anbout Giuliani using the NHS here in his campaign
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2781602.ece
>
>guess thats hilary gets elected then :-)
>
>at least Bill Clinton gets back near the seat of power. Lets all breath a sigh of relief.

I know you Brits love a good Monarchy, but I for one am looking forward to being rid of a 2 family system. It's been 20 years for Christ's sake! 28 if you GHWB's time as VP. Enough!