>>>>>Didn't Warren Buffet say that he paid about 17% income tax. If you set flat tax as, say 25%, he will have to pay. Sounds like a good math to me.
>>>>
>>>>And Warren Buffett would be more than happy to pay it, too. He's the one who said it was ridiculous that he paid at a lower rate than his secretary did.
>>>
>>>Therefore you, Warren Buffet, and I, all agree that flat tax is good :).
>>
>>What convoluted logic would lead you to that conclusion?
>>
>>If the conversation had gone
>>
>>"Didn't Warren Buffet say that he paid about 17% income tax. If you set his graduated tax rate as, say 25%, he will have to pay. Sounds like a good math to me."
>>
>>"And Warren Buffett would be more than happy to pay it, too. He's the one who said it was ridiculous that he paid at a lower rate than his secretary did."
>>
>>Would you state that he feels a graduated tax rate is good?
>
>We already have a graduated tax rate system. And accordingly he, Warren Buffet, made so much money that his rate should be 25% or higher. But he has powerful tax attorneys - like most rich people - and pays according to the loophole they find. Romney said that he pays at least 13% tax which is ridiculous given how much money he makes. So the point is that your graduated income tax system is only for middle and upper middle class; not for rich people. And rich people pay 20-30 thousand-dollar plate fund raising dinners for the president. And he in turn returns the favors. Corruptions, corruption, corruption. And the president only talks, talks, talks at fund raising events and campaign stops but does nothing. A flat tax rate system without loopholes is the way to go.

It's the way to go if you want to redistribute even more wealth from the middle class to the rich.