The problem with a flat tax is that it's unfair to poor people. People with greater ability should bear a greater percentage of the tax burden.

yeah. and then if you start doing it flat in stages you just slippery slope your way back into a complicated tax code.

Seany, do you still have that recipe I sent you? Tuns out it was on my work computer.

This is why I want a graduated tax, but lower and with no deductions. Then it would be easier and people with lots of accountants (read, rich people) wouldn't get all the breaks. I think I'm in a minority of one, maybe two, on this though.

I'm all for getting rid of the massively complicated deductions, but there's probably a really convincing argument for keeping them that I'm not aware of.

Seany, do you still have that recipe I sent you? Tuns out it was on my work computer.

I think I do, but it's packed away in one of the six or so boxes piled behind me. If it's important, I'll try to put a priority on digging it out some time this weekend.

I think, with local, state, federal, social security and medicaid we're looking at a 38% tax rate. They do blow.

The problem with a flat tax is that it's unfair to poor people. People with greater ability should bear a greater percentage of the tax burden.

As much as taxes blow, the flat tax blows more.

Aimee, that dress is fantabulous!!! I want it!

I swear I spent half the day not knowing what day of the week it was. Freak-y.

I just got back from seeing Jonathan Kozol speak. That man is amazing.

And now, I'm back in "I should forget about grad school and go teach" mode again. There's a Math for America recruiting poster that I walk by every day, and it keeps looking like a better and better idea.

Some deductions are good in that they encourage giving to charity, investing, supporting the arts, etc.

Yeah. I'm sure there's something more coherent that we could put together. Really, I just don't think any deductions should be allowed for corporations, but I'm notoriously anti-corporate.

Totally against a flat tax. The less money you earn, the larger a proportion of your income you need for basic food, clothes, and shelter. IMO that means you should have a lower tax burden. Simple fairness.

On a much more frivolous note, when will announcers learn that whenever you say that an athlete has yet to do some bad thing (say, fall on their triple loop, or, and Dave Niehaus, I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU, give up a homer on the road), they fall on the loop in that very program or give up a homer to THAT VERY BATTER?

I'm all for getting rid of the massively complicated deductions, but there's probably a really convincing argument for keeping them that I'm not aware of.

Deductions do all sorts of good things by encouraging wanted behaviors. They also do bad things by allowing some wealthy people to weasel out of paying their fair share. Personally, I think that the latter, plus the grief that dealing with them causes folks, outweighs the former. But I know I'm a bit odd.

Really, I just don't think any deductions should be allowed for corporations, but I'm notoriously anti-corporate.

I definitely think that there's too many deductions allowed, but a lot of things that I like (symphony, public TV, zoo, botanical garden, opera) depend on corporate tax-shelter money for large portions of their operating budget.

The trick is finding a balance of how much to allow.

What I'm really in favor of is taxing the shit out of luxury purchases--vacation homes, yachts, cars that cost more than a certain amount, private jets, jewelry that costs more than a certain amount, etc.