Not as of yet.  However I don't favor raising the tax percentages either.  Doing that to the people who actually do a large portion of investing and job creating seems like suicide with the financial situation as it is.

I think a flat tax in the end is probably fair.  Yet not feasable considering how the government currently runs, and that if we cut back on a lot of the useless crap the government does and focus some money on other needs like healthcare and other needs.

I mean.... once everyone is taken care of by their basic needs... what's unfair about a flat tax?

Once the basic needs are taken care of on all what's wrong with having a flat tax?

You could also argue if the bottom half gets more money to spend, they will spend it; creating demand for goods and services (which is part of GDP, financial investment is not), which creates jobs and increases profits, making stocks more attractive to investors who will sell off gold, foreign bonds and foreign currencies to buy stocks, which means more money for capital(K capital as in means of production, not dollar capital)

When you encourage stock purchases with lower taxes on higher incomes and investment income, you just create artificially high demand for stocks which creates a bubble that bursts the moment the market shows signs of trouble... like now.

The problem with the "Trickle-Up" model is it negates the fact that the people who earn more income generally have more ability to increase their income, typically at the expense of lower (in real terms) income for their employees or higher prices for their customers.

Edit: In other words, like any other cost they take on, wealthy people and corporations do not "eat" the cost of taxes they pass that onto someone else.

The truth is the Trickle Down theory works but not in the way that people want it to ... When you keep taxes (in general) low and let businesses and individuals grow the ecconomy everyone is far better off; the problem is that people don't notice how wealthy they are (primarly) because they compare their wealth next to someone else at the exact same point in history. If you go back 25 or 50 years and compare yourself to someone who was in the same financial position as you are, you will find that you are dramatically "Wealthier" than they were ...

Two basic comments:

What constitutes "basic needs"?  Food and shelter?  Food, shelter, and clothing?  Food, shelter, clothing, and video games?  College?  Opinions are going to differ. 

I would argue that taking 20% of $20,000 hurts a lot more than taking 20% of $200,000.  That's why I don't favor the flat tax at all. 

As far as taxing investments, I'm willing to get into this if you want, but preferably we might create a devoted Flat Tax discussion thread if we're really going to go at it.  But one thing I recently heard of is that in the past there has sometimes (in dire times such as this IIRC) been a very small (0.1%) tax on stock trades.  This would certainly cut down on market volatility, which I believe has been named as the biggest [edit:  current stock] market hazard.

Personally, I've always been a fan of creating a flat tax system where you allow everyone to earn a certain ammount of money tax free. For example, if you say that an individual pays 20% of their income in tax after they have earned 10,000 per year it works out to a 0% tax for people who earn 10k, a 10% tax for people who earn 20k, a 15% tax for people who earn 40k, and keeps climbing from there.

Its simple, fair and easy, and people can complete their tax return on a post-card.

Progressive taxes are pretty simple too. It's not the base form that's responsible for the state the tax code is in today, and I think that all the people (not you) who think that [insert hobby horse here] will never get byzantine the way the current system did are fooling themselves.

I'm all in favor of tearing down the absurd level of intricacy in our current tax code and building something simple out of the rubble.  But I'm less optimistic that it will stay that way.  CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

[edit:  and isn't your idea in fact a two-tier progressive tax?]

Anyway guys, Gallup for today shows Obama down 1 pt to 49-43 McCain. Likely voter polls (expanded) shows a 51-45 race and LV (traditional) shows 49 Obama-47 McCain within a 2% margin of error.

Polls should tighten before election day so this is normal. The question is will Obama get a bump from the last debate win and from his 30 min speech on the 29th.

Also, going to Obama rally this saturday! Excited :)

Where at?

Anyone who considers videogames or college basic needs are basically unreasonable.

Basic needs = what you need to live a healthy life.

The constitution above all else gives us three things.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life = Basic Needs

Liberty = Not restricting people unneededly.

Pursuit of Happiness = Not getting in peoples way in what they want to do.