>First, I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong to say that a flat tax
>can easily be less regressive than the current system, because just like the
>current system, it can be written to be regressive or progressive as the
>framers wish (exemptions, provisions, loopholes, etc.) (Frankly, for my
>part, I'd gladly pay more just to be able to forget the IRS - so, I'll up
>the ante and declare myself for the VAT. I know I have to pay for all those
>fucking bombs, but do I have to do it with a check from my personal account
>quarterly?)
A flat tax can't be progressive. You can write exemptions and deductions into it, but after some point it gets flat. The whole point of a flat tax is to lower the tax rate on the rich. A progressive tax system is based on taxing the rich at a higher rate than the middle and the poor least of all. You may be confusing complexity with progressivity - you could eliminate all kinds of loopholes and favors, greatly simplify everything, and still have a progressive rate structure. A VAT, without offsetting spending, is a regressive tax, since the lower you go on the income scale the larger share of your income you consume. The bottom 20% spends more than its income, so a VAT would be bad news for them.
Doug