Seriously.

[Jackalope]

The working poor currently have a net negative tax rate (due to credits). The bottom two quintiles pay no tax at all.

My friend (who I spoke of earlier) made $9000 last year and received a $4000 check from the IRS. I know this to be true, I helped her file her taxes.

Under the current system, she has $13k to provide for her family. With a 10% flat tax, no deductions or credits, she has $8100.

Clear enough?

And where did that $4000 check come from? OUR pockets. It didn't magically appear, she got a piece of that from me. All my love to your friend, but if you don't mind helping her then YOU help her. Why am I obliged to hand her some of mine? There is no issue with clarity here, you are failing to provide adequate reasons why I need to pay more of my income, or actually provide income in the case of your friend, than another?

You misunderstand my point. I'm not making the argument that some degree of wealth redistribution is good (though for the record, I do think it is). I'm simply stating that implementing your proposal would put someone I care about out on the streets with her two children (i.e. my comment about it 'fucking the working poor in the ass'). I find that situation to be unacceptable. For the record, I *do* help people in need, voluntarily out of my own pocket.

For the moment, let's forget about the $4000 in credits this person currently receives. Taking $900 in taxes out of the pocket of a working, poor, single parent caring for two children who currently has no federal tax obligation is monstrous. For someone in that situation, taking away $900 in income annually is the difference between being able to feed your family or not. We're talking about someone who is doing the best that they can under the circumstances, in a state with one of the worst unemployment rates in the country.

I used to feel as you appear to do. With my cozy middle-class upbringing, I hadn't been exposed to working-class poverty, and it was pretty easy for me to believe that the poor were that way because they were lazy. Clearly, I no longer hold that position.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where every person who was willing and able to work had full employment, and could "pull their own weight". Where disability, mental illness, and lack of education and opportunity didn't exist. Where people didn't abandon their spouse and kids to poverty. Where the greedy didn't prey upon the less fortunate to line their own pockets.

We don't live in that world - and because we don't live in that world, it's my belief that we have a duty to help those in need. Currently, that's in the form of private charity, public assistance (if you can qualify), and tax credits to the working poor. I have no problem with this. Clearly, you disagree, and that's your right.

Sure, I grouse about taxes come April 15th like many people do - but if I'm going to bitch and moan about taxes, it's going to be because of the enormous expense of maintaining our bloated military and other wasteful institutions. It's certainly not going to be because we redistribute a small amount of income to those in need.

We (I assume you also live in the USA) live in a country that has historically enjoyed tremendous prosperity - and in my view, it's shameful that in such a country, we have such widespread poverty and need still exists.

I'm all for simplifying our tax code - but not at the expense of those in need.

---

Edited to add: Regardless of whether we help the needy via tax credits or not - you're going to be helping to pay for their needs one way or another whether you like it or not. That is, unless we as a society decide that we'd rather have them kicked out into the streets to fend for themselves. I'm glad that we haven't done that, and believe that we can and should do more, both individually and as a society.