>>Well, unless you consider it fair that the rich should pay the same rate as the middle class and everyone else. You can spin it any way you like but a flat tax system boils down to "the rich pay less and everyone else pays more."
>>
>>No. It boils down to "everyone pays the same percentage of their income." The rich still pay more because 10% of $1,000,000 is a lot more money than 10% of $100,000.
>>
>>What percentage of their should the rich pay? 50%? 75%? How much money that someone has worked hard to earn is it fair to confiscate in order to resdistribute it to people that the government thinks need it more than the person who earned it? And should the 50% of people who pay no federal income tax at all continue to be moochers? Exactly what do you think is fair? And what do you define as rich? Anyone who earns more than you do?
>
>Marcia, I completely agree. See, we have common ground. 48% of all Americans pay ZERO federal income tax. Holy Crap! The middle class pay an equitable amount, the so-called rich pay through the nose, and the super-rich pay less (as a percentage), than the middle class or the so-called rich. The 48% that pay nothing should pay something and the super-rich should pay an equitable portion (as a percentage). My first choice is a flat tax rate, but I'm a realist and don't think that will ever happen. I would settle for a more equitable graduated tax rate but everybody should have "skin in the game" (read NO moochers) and the super-rich shouldn't get all those loopholes.

What tax banding would you regard as equitable ?
In the UK currently approx:

Personal allowance : £7,500 (ie deducted from gross income to determine taxable income) then
20% to £35,000
40% to £150,000
50% over that.

No 'tax credit' as such but government pays ~£1000 for first child and ~£700 for each additional child to the family.
Also bear in mind that there is a 20% VAT on most goods (main exception being food) plus a high rate of duty on fuel which everyone pays regardless of income.....