nor am i suer of his ideas about a true flat tax based on income with no deductiona and/or exemptions,

A flat rate individual income tax sounds very reasonable, George. I certainly agree that specialized deductions and exemptions have become convoluted, along with the use of tax "credits". I'm uncertain of total elimination of exemptions, though. (Just really haven't put much thought into it yet.) My initial gut instinct is to favor only the personal exemption for individuals and dependents -- adjusted for inflation from what it was 30-40 years ago.

BTW, you're right about geezer misrepresenting what I say.
He's a creature of habit and has more difficulty telling the truth than Klintoon.

My initial gut instinct is to favor only the personal exemption for individuals and dependents -- adjusted for inflation from what it was 30-40 years ago.

And what should be the tax on Businesses, since you have decided that more than half the citizenry should not pay a visible or apparent tax?

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

Just how do you intend to keep government largess buying votes for more bennies under control?

For each individual Willie, the current personal exemption for single persons 2002, is $3000.

In 1948 the median family income was $3,187 and the personal exemption was $600.
As of 1992, from a base of $600 in 1948, the personal exemption was never adjusted enough to compensate for inflation. While it was raised from $1,000 to $2,000 in the 1986 tax reform, the exemption would have to be about $8,000 to provide the same benefits it did in 1948.

Source: Scott A. Hodge, "Back to Budgeting as Usual: New Spending Caps Leave Room for Plenty of Pork," Backgrounder No. 849, Sept. 6, 1991, Heritage Foundation

Now the question becomes who, under your ideal tax, is around to actually pay a proportionate tax such that it deters growth in government, or in anyway provides feedback to the citizen that government largess is way too much.

Considering that under the current system:

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?

And Congress Critters live by the maxim:

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Right now, 70% of the voting public continue to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of taxpayers to foot the bill.

And you want to up the personal exemption and retain the Individual Income Tax with SS/Mediscare taxes and Business Income/payroll taxes besides?

You are indeed a fool, or a socialist bent on maintaining things just as they are.

Here's how some rates come out for you Willie, based on retaining current levels of revenue to pay the nation's debts etc. (not including SS/Medicare payments) and a $10,000 personal exemption, no deductions "flat" income tax.

http://www.library.unt.edu/govinfo/subject/vital.html

"The chart below shows a hypothetical set of flat tax rates and allowances that would result in revenue neutrality. This model, produced by the Congressional Budget Office shows that all federal income tax revenues [no SS/Medicare, Federal Unemployment , gift or estate taxes are considered] could be fully replaced by a system with a flat tax rate of 13.1 percent and no deductions. Allowing total deductions for a family of four to reach $36,800 (more than double the amount allowed in 1995) would require a 19.9 percent rate."

Joint Economic Committee

**Revenue Neutral Tax Rates for Alternative Allowances and Exemptions Under a Flat Tax**
Standard Allowances	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Option 5
Single	$13,100	$13,100	$ 6,550	$ 6,550	$0
Joint	$26,200	$26,200	$13,100	$13,100	$0
Head of Household	$17,200	$17,200	$ 8,600	$ 8,600	$0
Dependent Exemption	$ 5,300	$ 2,650	$ 5,300	$ 2,650	$0
Revenue Neutral Tax Rate	19.9%	19.4%	16.8%	16.3%	13.1%

Source: Congressional Budget Office, 1995.

Gee that means under a "flat" tax a single person would pay:

15.3% ---- 15.3%(SS/Medicare) on wages/salary below $10,000,
33.5% ---- 18.2% + 15.3% on wages/salary and other income from $10,000-$75,000
18.2% ---- on wages/salaries and other income from $75,001 up.

And being constucted similarly to the Armey Flat Tax, Businesses would also pay,

18.2% --- on (Gross Receipts less allowed business costs) on profits greater than $10,000.

"My initial gut instinct is to favor only the personal exemption for individuals and dependents"

WG, I agree with an exemption of the first say ten thousand dollars of each and every taxpaying entities earnings, but tell me again why everybody else should shoulder the responsibility of other folks kids. If a deduction is to be given, shouldn't it be given to those who don't have kids, and/or whose kids don't use public schools and the like? Course, I'll gladly give up one for the other . Peace and love, George.