Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt. By adjusting X and Y one can make it as
progressive or regressive as you want.

How, then, would that be a "flat tax?"

See the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the grandfather of
all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax that applied to
corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for individuals.
This sort of scheme is common to all flat tax proposols.

In terms of high school analytic geometry, a flat tax is a straight
line, but the y-intercept is not necessarily zero. By adjusting the
y-intercept, a flat tax can be made more or less progressive. But it's
still a flat tax regardless of the intercept.

If the y intercept is zero, this is sometimes called a "pure" flat tax,
but to insist on this as part of the definition of "flat tax" is to
ignore 99% of the actual proposals that call themselves by that name.

See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...cfm?PubID=8521.
or
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=pb&id=151

The flat tax was an interesting proposal. Too bad it was used as a
stalking horse.

//Walt