i am also saying that we should just get one percentage, no matter what amount of money you make. there are circumstances such as yours, where i sympathize, but the government shouldn't be setting higher tax percentages for one person and not another. they shouldn't look at your income to tell what taxes you pay

First of all, I sympathize with your situation. It is unfortunate that things happen to us which are beyond our control. That is unfortunately, the nature of the human condition.

Nobody is calling your or your family lazy because you struggle to pay bills and make ends meet. You hardships should be assisted by your fellow men, not a faceless bureaucrat. The people at your local church or place of worship may have a charity set up to help provide food and assistance for your family.

I am arguing for a flat tax rate, not that all Americans pay the same amount. The taxes raised by the government should expressly be used to fund only what the Constitution compels the federal government to be involved in. Today, we have a massive welfare state which consumes 25 percent of the national gdp, raises costs on goods through subsidies and inefficiencies, and promotes failure which keeps people impoverished.

The federal government has no legitimate businesses creating very arbitrary means and definitions of valuing one person by the amount of money that they make. The idea that the government can lable somebody as "rich" or "poor" frightens me. Where do these people come up with these standards?

As it is today, 50 percent people pay no federal income taxes and receive money back on their tax returns. All of the class warfare about how the rich don't pay their fair share (another arbitrary phrase), and yet the top 1 percent of tax payers pay 38 percent of federal income taxes.

This is exactly what our founders fought against. An early system designed to protect private property of individuals was to only allow "freeholders" (those who own private land and property) could vote. Although people may disagree in theory over the results of such a system, the implications were clear.

They also hated the idea of a democracy. In a democracy, there is no rule of law beyond the rule of the majority. There needs to be restrictions on laws and the authority of government. Our framers created a representative republic, where a rule of law, not a rule of the majority triumphs. In a pure democracy, it always leads to a tyranny of the majority.

For sake of clarifications, I am not rich. My family is not rich. My family's taxes are not being debated over in the House of Representatives, nor do I have any monetary benefit to gain from the House extending tax cuts for the top income bracket. However, I do hold the interest that you hold as well, and that is individual liberty.

There was a time when "the rich" were taxed at over 90 percent of their incomes. Even at a time, President FDR proposed a 99.5 percent income tax for those making over $100,000. "Why not?" he responded when an advisor questioned him on this.

I hold no particular reverence for those who make more money than me. For those who directly provide me with a service or good which I am willing to pay for, I thank them for their services, as I serve to gain  from the transaction. I do not consider them dwelving into saintly deeds either, but I am not willing to call them looters, worthy of having a larger share in the burden by actions of the state. I disagree profoundly with the progressive income tax.

"A republic, if you can keep it." -Benjamin Frankin