lordjeebus

That's not what I was trying to say.

I do not mind terribly that some people who make more money are better off than others -- often it is a product of hard work. It would also eliminate one's incentive to work.

Here's an example to explain what I do mean: Person A makes 15K, Person B makes $1.5 million. If there was a 33% flat tax, Person A would pay $5000 a year, and Person B pays 500K. This seems unfair to me because a $5000 tax burden for Person A will have cause a far greater change in his/her quality of life (relative to what would be possible without paying tax) than the 500K burden for Person B (again, relative to what's possible without taxes). Person A might have to move into a worse neighborhood or skip meals, whereas Person B would have to give up buying a summer home or a couple of Italian sports cars. I think the goal in determining tax rates would be to try to equalize this quality-of-life burden, but not to equalize their total quality-of-life.

In math terms, taxes should impose constant delta(QOL), but should not impose constant QOL.

Another thing I realize I've changed my mind about is inheritance tax -- I think that the societal benefit of giving children inheritances in excess of a million dollars or so (excluding special circumstances like a disabled child who cannot work, or farmland) is outweighed by the social good that that money could produce elsewhere.