Bob for a flat tax:
As a product of a Jesuit education, I learned a lot about fairness, equity and justice. Although I suspect that my high school teachers and college professors would be appalled by the manner in which I apply those concepts to taxes, I reach the following conclusions:
Fairness would dictate that, since our government is supposed to benefit all Americans, all of us should pay the same tax, a true flat tax. Although that would be "fair", many (myself included) would argue that such an arrangement would not be "equitable."
Equity would suggest that each of us should pay the same tax rate, so that if A earns 10 times what B earns A would pay 10 times the amount of tax that B does. But would that be "just"? Simply because A can afford to pay more in taxes than B does not mean that A should. A doesn't get 10 times the benefit from our government than B does.
Justice then, in my view, requires a graduated tax rate, not like the one that we have in place but a declining rate at different breakpoints. If I were constructing a tax system, I would do it like this:
1. No one pays Federal income taxes (including income, FICA and Medicare taxes) on income up to the "poverty line" to be determined by Congress at the beginning of each term. If you earn less than the "poverty line" for your family size, you would pay no Federal income taxes; and if you earn $100,000 or $1,000,000, you would pay no Federal income taxes on the amount of earnings below the "poverty line" for your family size.
2. Everyone who pays Federal income taxes pays those taxes at a flat rate to be set by Congress at the beginning of each term and most deductions (e.g. charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments) would be eliminated.
3. The flat rate would apply to all income (excluding income below the "poverty line") up to $2,000,000. The next $2,000,000 would be taxed at 80% of the established flat rate; the next $2,000,000 would be taxed at 60% of the established flat rate; the next $2,000,000 would be taxed at 40% of the established flat rate; and all income above $8,000,000 would be taxed at 20% of the established flat rate.
Under such a system, we should be able to avoid "class warfare" not only in speeches but also in fact. We would also achieve a "just" income tax system.

Dave says the Founding Fathers weren't much for "fairness"
"It won't take you long to figure out that I'm a conservative, but if you'll take a moment to read my email I would appreciate a genuine dialog on the tax issue . . . I'm not an economist, not a politician, nor anything resembling a financial expert. I'm simply a person who has owned and operated a small business for the last 20 years. My business has been through great times and very difficult times. Over the years I've employed anywhere from 5 to 60 employees. Like most any small business, during these twenty years I have always had to have my personal assets (home, savings, etc.) guarantee any loans, lines of credit, or other financing my business has needed. There have been difficult times when I was very close to losing most all my personal assets. There have been plenty of months where I've taken little or no salary with the promise that things would turn around soon. I risked it all because one, I had a lot of people working for me that depended on my business for their livelihood, and two, I looked forward to the potential reward should I make it through the hard times and succeed. Without the potential of a worthwhile reward most small business owners would have little incentive to take such risks.
Your article promotes idea of "fairness" --after all, even Warren Buffet doesn't see anything wrong with that -- of course he's in a wealth class all to himself! But who will be the arbiters of "fairness"? You...the government...Buffet? Our founding fathers did not seem to consider "fairness" to be core principal by which to govern the country. Rather, they considered life and liberty to be of utmost importance. To quote someone I heard the other day, "the purpose of our tax system should be to dole out fairness."
You spent a good deal of your article asserting why someone who makes $250k or more a year is wealthy. A discussion about taxes should not be about how much money someone needs to make to be called wealthy, but rather what tax system is best for our country. I decide this by answering the following questions:
What tax system best promotes life, liberty, individual responsibility, and the desire to pursue a better quality of life?
What tax system best incentives a person to take risks to create and grow a business, and thus create jobs?
Will the government spend the money it takes from me in taxes more wisely than I will spend it myself? To put it another way, will the government get more value for each dollar of mine than I will?
...I know there are more questions but I can't think of any at the moment!
When I've made a lot of money...I've also given a lot of money to people in need and causes that I choose to support--where are the "pro-choice" voices on this issue? I hate the thought of a bunch of bureaucrats taking my money...wasting a lot of it on "red tape"...spending a bunch on programs I probably don't support...and finally spending what's left on things that are actually necessary for the defense and government of our country.
I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself, and I believe our government should provide a safety net for those who are in great need for the basics of living. However, while I'm firmly pro-life on the abortion issue, I'm also firmly pro-choice on letting individual Americans ("wealthy" or not) decide what to do with more of their hard earned money.

Marty on the problem with American voters:
In relation to yesterday's column, I like what a letter-writer named Dan had to say in yesterday's newspaper: "When Dan the plumber looks in the mirror, he sees Dan the plumber. When Joe the plumber looks in the mirror ... he apparently sees some version of Warren E. Buffett." Therein lies the problem with many American voters. They vote for politicians and policies that are destructive to their own interests because they somehow identify with the rich, who mostly only have contempt for them."