peterh wrote:I notice how you've not demanded a list of citations until you came across someone who disagreed with you...
Most people disagree with me one way or another
peterh wrote:So you create a lower-middle class ceiling where you get suddenly smacked with a bigger tax burden as your income increases? Hardly a recipe for class mobility.
You are worried that a lower middle class would suffer a bigger tax burden as their income increases?
Am I in someway missing the point here, I thought you were arguing that those who could afford to pay ought to pay and that the amount they pay should increase as their means to pay did, it sounds to me like you are now entering a plea that taxation is actually suppressing those who can afford to pay unfairly. You are in fact now arguing against yourself and seemingly pressing a libertarian point of view.
peterh wrote:You suggested the idea of dismantling progressive taxation, giving a substantial break to the rich from the current tax structure (which is historically very generous to the wealthy), and then added an exemption for the poor people you would cripple by this as an afterthought.
It did come across as a little bit John Galt, you must admit.
You are assuming your conclusion, that a flat tax necessarily give a tax break to the rich, even one that excludes from the start the continuing of actual tax breaks for tax payers.
I'd imagine whether it gives a tax break would depend upon how high the rate would be. Given that I suggested rolling all taxes into the flat tax, and excluding the possibility of taxing the poorest in society, it would be interesting if such a tax could possibly give the rich a tax break whilst maintaining anything like current spending levels.
To finalize, I sadly can't admit it, as I haven't read any of Rand's works so I am unaware if the comparison is valuable.