Jersey, Guernsey, Mauritius and Hong Kong are not related to USSR. You may just ask Mason.
Why are you so stubborn? You said that flat tax is a novelty; I explained to you that it was used all times.
You change it that you meant 'flat income tax', and I gave the list of countries using it.
Now you say that you meant 'flat income tax in Western countries'. It is difficult to figure out what you actually mean if you change it with the next reply.

>I have the Wikipedia article open in another tab and looked up "Countries that have flat tax systems". They are all Eastern European or the remnants of the USSR! Surely this is not the model we want to embrace. BTW, I did say western nations.
>
>Nor do I consider China in the 1st century AD particularly relevant.
>
>Would you like to play again?
>
>>You can open wikipedia and check 'Flat Tax' article. It has the list of countries using flat income tax. Do you still insist that it is a 'new concept'?
>>Please, note that 'income' tax is relatively new in historical terms. IIRC, Chinese emperor-usurper Wang Mang (1st cent. AD) was the first ruler implementing it, bringing down Chinese economy and own rule in two decades. Since then, income tax did not appear for about two milleniums. Maybe you referred to the whole thing, i.e. called 'income tax' a new concept?
>>
>>>I was talking about income tax (and think John was, too). Are you aware of a flat income tax?
>>>
>>>>It is not fair to call flat tax a new concept. It was used in all times since taxes appeared. Just to give you one example: SS tax appeared 75 years ago.
>>>>
>>>>>If he did then that certainly mitigates my point. Still, I believe in a progressive tax system (and did when I was making a lot of money). It's not exactly a new concept, in this country or any other western nation. A flat tax is the new concept, conceived by those with high incomes who want to less income tax. Well, duh, if self-interest is all one cares about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Wasn't it John who stated in another message that the tax should begin at a reasonable income level like 50,000 or something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A flat tax is a completely different idea. And, needless to say, deeply regressive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A very simple example -- let's say there is a flat tax of 15%. Under this system someone with an income of $20,000 would pay $3000 and someone with an income of $200,000 would pay $30,000. The 3K is going to sting taxpayer #1 a heck of a lot more than the 30K is going to sting taxpayer #2. You can call it "fair" because the percentages are the same, but the impact is not fair or equal at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hey Nick,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You raise a good point. There are no rich men made poor by taxation. Do you know why? Because the tax laws are so torturous and have so many loopholes that the wealthy find ways to avoid the sting. Therein lies the problem - we don't need to tax the rich more, we need to focus on a flat tax with few loopholes where everyone is playing the same equivalent amount. Right now if the marginal rates are raised without reform of the tax laws it'll be another case of hiding wealth in tax shelters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You and Tamar have me all wrong on this. I am not advocating no tax changes on the wealthy; on the contrary - I am saying that democratic principles dictate that we have a flat tax rate with no loopholes (or maybe for the truly disadvantaged). To me, this is the sound and equitable way to finance government.