>>>
>>>
>>>He has never struck me as the type to stir up a fuss. It must be that new pal of his, whatshisname, having an evil influence on him <g>.
>>
>>I agree, he has stayed in the background in the past. I just have to wonder what the purpose of this statement was. If he was trying to say the rich should pay the same percentage as the middle class, I can accept that. I think I've stated numerous times that a flat tax seems to be the most fair. However, the rich have so many loopholes, even a flat tax might be avoidable.
>>
>>The rich guy could take a 50k annual salary, then have the company fund everything else he does like buy his house, lease cars, airplanes, yachts, etc. He could dodge a flat tax, unless it was structured to include all those perks.
>
>
>A flat tax is "fair" to those who make more than average. Our whole tax system -- long before Bush, long before Clinton, before any of these candidates were born -- is progressive. You may object to the word but the point is the well-to-do are asked to contribute more than their share in order to help those who cannot take care of themselves adequately. All developed countries operate this way.
>

The trouble with that is the upper echelon don't pay the same percentage as the middle class. They pay a lower percentage, and in some cases almost nothing because of the business loopholes. The take a minimal salary, have the company take care of everything else and there you go. A flat tax that said 10 percent would fix that.