You are right.

I just ran the numbers for our family, and from a money in the pocket standpoint, we pay way less under Trumps proposed plan.

Definitely can see how this would have mass appeal.

. . . . . then why won't a Democrat adopt the same thing?

The fact is, a good idea is a good idea on its own merits, the source of the idea notwithstanding.

But whatever. I haven't read anything about it save what you posted in your OP.

Adjust the numbers to make it work.

Sorry if that came off as harsh on you.

even $80,000 a year, which is by no means, rich. In Texas, that would be a couple that are both school teachers.

Trump's supporters for the most part are at about 1/4th that income level. And he knows it.

The first $50k would be tax free and the remainder would be subject to tax. The unknown is how fast the rate reaches the top rate.

I can see this having mass appeal if the brackets above median progress slowly

He starts proposing really good ideas like this.

It hits middle class hard at 36% over median income. We're talking about couples where each is a teacher, mechanic, plumber, welder, etc, seeing their taxes go up, not down.

But 36% as an example above is about what I pay anyway.

The flat tax is a good idea because it will effectively raise taxes on the rich across the board.

To just have a number to work with.

as is the size of the threshold before you begin paying. If the rate doesn't equal the current top rate, then it cannot raise enough money without savage cuts which they'd have to justify. And since some people see their marginal rate of tax as more important than the actual total amount they pay, there will be some who are above the threshold who see it as bad anyway. But even if you set it so that the current top rate payers pay the same as they do now, those just below will pay less than now, so the amount raised will be something less. That would, in practice, be enough less that hoooge spending cuts would still be needed.

How you would argue against a flat tax depends on the rate and threshold, but there are always good arguments against it.

We do not know what the brackets will be above the median.

I can see the appeal, my family would pay zero under this plan.

Do not underestimate Trump.

1. "Set a relatively high marginal tax rate (for argument, say 36%)." That's a low top rate by historical standards. The top marginal rate should be at least 70% like it used to be.

2. Most people pay little federal income tax today. The biggest hit for them is the FICA (payroll) tax. That's what funds Social Security. These "flat tax" proposals don't affect that unless their sole purpose is to destroy Social Security.

The fact is that this idea, like every "flat tax" plan, it is merely a ruse to lower the taxes paid by the already-getting-a-free-ride under-taxed billionaires with a side benefit of lowering federal revenue to "drown (the federal government) in the bathtub."

1. Payroll taxes are a whole different discussion.

2. Elimination of special treatment for dividends and capital gains, elimination of loopholes and writeoffs, and the beginning of the 36% at above the median income cause progressiveness which fades out at "infinity".

3. Look at what the "true tax rate" today is for the 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1% incomes. This will improve progressiveness over what we have today.

4. Quite possibly, we could have a much more simplified tax form and cause bankruptcy for H&R Block.

progressive as stated. Eliminating tax exemptions and various problems including unrealized capital gains vs. realized capital gains and other deductions, however, might be more problematic than apparent at first glance. The definition of income itself is fraught with ad hoc applications and complexities. There seem to always be ways to dodge income tax by taking compensation in ways not defined as income for tax purposes.

Secondly, of course, the devil is always in the details and the necessary political wrangling to specify exact numbers and categories--and these will always be subject to the winds of change.

I love progressive marginal rate schedules, but they cause a lot of problems including,(but not limited to) increased incentives to hide income for those at the higher marginal rates.

Of course it doesn't do anything to alleviate the regressiveness of the social security tax, but on the whole, the idea is definitely appealing.

People falling for the Fair and Flat Tax smoke and mirrors on a Democratic board.

Don't be fooled. Both are horrible fucking ideas that would not pan out like the snake-oil salesmen say they will.

If Mike Huckabee likes something . . . well, then.

And this, my friends, is fucking dangerous.

Trump’s flim-flam tax proposal. You are right: his rhetoric is dangerous.

Get rid of business investment deductions? Business travel? Meals? Get rid of all the other deductions associated with being a businessman?

Are you also forgetting that every working person making less than 50k a year pays at least 15.3% of their income in federal taxes? Are you also forgetting that the working poor effectively have a negative federal income tax rate?

It doesn't make it progressive, it locks in the regressivity.

You're a pretty smart person. Sometimes I wonder if you really believe in the bait with which you troll.

Hopefully it puts tax reform as a leading issue and shifting the tax burden towards the rich as a centerpiece of the conversation.

I can also see why the republican establishment is scared shitless of Trump.