tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6163803476350753396.post1024478036757381245..comments2022-04-07T11:16:34.946-04:00Comments on XTRABIGG NEWS: The Insidious Nature of the 'Flat' and Fair' Income TaxAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04790676144973907660noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6163803476350753396.post-52083197953226087012011-10-29T01:18:10.598-04:002011-10-29T01:18:10.598-04:00The same "share', yes, but of TOTAL incom...The same "share', yes, but of TOTAL income. My point is, the lower a person's income, the less and less they have of 'disposable' income, and the higher amount they pay for the basic exxentials- food, shelter, energy, education, etc. So while the PERCENTAGE is the same, the amount that the tax eats into income that would be spent on NECESSARY spending increases. A person making $250,000/year spends a far smaller percentage of their income on the basic essentials than someone making, say $20,000/year.Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.http://xtrabiggg.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6163803476350753396.post-46913705186752723532011-10-25T11:58:25.420-04:002011-10-25T11:58:25.420-04:00As far as shrinking the government and eliminating...As far as shrinking the government and eliminating income tax altogether, I'm with you in spirit, but you do have a mathematical error. If everyone pays 20%, it is inaccurate to say that "both tax schemes unfairly take from the poor and the middle class a larger share of their income." No, such a tax scheme takes precisely the same "share" from everyone's income - 20%. The hit to a poorer person's wallet may hurt more, but it's definitely the same "share" (percentage).Brian Johnsonhttp://www.facebook.com/misterdirectornoreply@blogger.com