If they charged 5% across the board then they probably would have more money, but it wouldn't be a fair system. The reason they'd have more money is because people who have filthy mounds of cash that they keep in a swimming pool ala Scrooge McDuck hire nice men such as those that work for Arthur Anderson to make sure that they don't have to part with too much of their money. While the current system is certainly very complex, and undoubtedly needs a great deal of work, does it seem fair that someone who barely scrapes by on minimum wage should pay the same percentage as the aforementioned person who habitually rolls naked in large mounds of cash and then lets people handle the soiled bills? There does need to be some kind of structure in place to make sure that those that can afford it pay it, while those that can't, get something by way of a break. If 5% across the board would produce more tax dollars overall, just think how much more 5% across the board for the first $50k of anyone's salary (and bonuses), 10% on the next $50-100k, and $25 thereafter would produce. As they say in America, "That's commie talk boy, now squeal like a pig".
AJC
