It's so unfair: My inability to dunk, that is. Anyway, back to flat tax. I agree with you that my semi-coherent argument put the rabbit in the hat; that is that taxes should be about fairness and that the rich should pay more. The argument might go that you want to let the poorer people keep more of their income in order to take care of necessities, while the "rich" don't have such worries, and therefore "can" afford to pay a higher percentage. The third position is to tax the poor more heavily - perhaps as incentive to get rich, but I think most would agree that would be counter-intuitive, or at least, counter-productive. A flat tax, by its nature, is the most neutral, and consequently, the most fair in its strictest terms. If you're going to take away a % of someone's income simply by virtue of them existing within your borders, then you need a rationale, because a tax, from the get-go is arbitrary, and only used instead of the government charging you directly for every service it provides (and presumably that you use). Since it's arbitrary, and we're a republic, then whatever the majority wants to say is fair...is. Fairness is apart from efficacy, which is where the collision occurs.