The burden on the rich is limited to whatever the top rate is, and then only "in the limit." A standard deduction that exempts "most" persons, whatever that means, requires a higher single rate which has a larger marginal effect on those above the floor, if the same revenue is to be collected.
It is very unlikely that such a tax could maintain existing average rates on upper-income persons.
> > Brown's plan was written by Arthur Laffer, the author of the
> famous curve
> > on a cocktail napkin. It combines two different right-wing dreams, a
> > consumption tax and a flat income tax. Both spare capital and
> sting labor.
Laffer's tax was quite different from the Hall-Rabushka-Armey model. It was much more complicated, for one thing. WOuld also have been somewhat more progressive than Armey too.
> . . .
> Seidman is an former accountant. To him, a fat tax will ruin the
> profession.
see above.
> But, Doug, the current complexity and loopholes, are inseparably
> tied to the rate structure. That was how the tax bill was negotiated. To
get rid
> of one, your have to get rid of the other.
Trying to simulate high average rates on the rich w/the flat tax would give rise to the same sort of activity. There's nothing magic about the single rate, in and of itself.
> Since most of the rich are only paying AMT (Alternative Minimum
> Tax) anyway, a flat tax will not redcue their taxes further if AMT is
kept.
Most have to file the AMT, but that doesn't mean that on average upper income people don't pay higher average rates under the present system (which they do).
mbs