Why Not A Flat Tax?

This Presidential campaign has been rife with "I'll give tax cuts here" and "I'll give tax cuts here too and then some." As a single male, I'm disgusted: I never fit any of the qualifications. Why do I get nothing when others get tax cuts for irresponsible, annoying dumb shit like having children? I have no problem paying taxes; I do have a problem with deficits and debt.

So why not a flat tax? Increases for everyone when spending increases; decreases for everyone when spending decreases.

Not to be conspiratorial, but here's one reason why:

A new study based on unpublished Internal Revenue Service data shows the rich are different when it comes to paying taxes: They hide more of their income.

The previously unreported study estimates that taxpayers whose true income was between $500,000 and $1 million a year understated their adjusted gross incomes by 21% overall in 2001, compared to an 8% underreporting rate for those earning $50,000 to $100,000 and even lower rates for those earning less. (The "net misreporting rate" as the IRS calls it, includes both underreported income and inflated deductions.)

In all, because of their higher noncompliance rates, those with true incomes of $200,000 or more received 25% of all income, but accounted for 40% of net underreported income and 42% of underreported tax in 2001, the new analysis finds.

And what does that mean for us?

The Slemrod/Johns analysis uses unpublished data from special research audits the IRS conducted on a sample of 45,000 individual returns filed for 2001. It was the IRS' first such research effort since 1988, and it led the agency to estimate the 2001 gross "tax gap" at $345 billion.

That's half a Wall Street bail-out! In one year! Here's an idea: we all pay up fairly. Anyone with me? I remember him: I gave his campaign money over a decade ago...And where in the hell is Kemp?