If the idea is to tax the rich more, then why not limit it to those that will never feel the effects?

ok you do realize that the top 1% of the population pay 43% of the US taxes - right? If we do anything to get them to leave then who will pay?

The flat tax is a fairer idea - Cain's 9% - because 9% of a million is alot more than 9% of 100k -

You would have to take a disproportionate amount from those individuals because there are far fewer of them. a 4 percent increase they could stomach, an 8% increase would lead to much wailing and gnashing of cosmetically straightened, pearly white teeth.

In response to craig f: the top 1% pay 43% of the taxes because they control 52% of the nations wealth. They have been paying well above 40% of our nations taxes for well over two decades, yet in those two decades, they have also seen a 257% increase in wealth, while the low and middle class have only seen an 18 and 27% increase in wealth, respectively.

Heres a radical idea, tax rates should be directly proportional to value margin, i.e., the top 1%, controlling 52% of the nations wealth, should pay 52% of the nations taxes.

The tax proposal rejected by Republicans yesterday that was going to pay for infrastructure was only on income over 1 million per year, and it was only 0.7%. No one would have "felt the effects" they probably wouldn't even have known if no one told them

Less tax money coming in = higher deficit. The debt isn't going to pay itself off, and we can't constantly be lowering taxes for people.