Do you not understand the term pro rate? Proportional rationing or proportionally ratioed. There is no simpler nor basic pro rate system that a flat percent based on an amount. This amount we are discussing is income.
For something to be prorated it needs to be proportioned against something else. You said "pro rate down in absolute value as you go toward the lower income working class." So clearly when you said "value" you meant absolute dollar amount. "Absolute value" as I would have used it would be with regard to the "value of money," as I described in the post towards the top of the page. Clearly you see "value" and "absolute dollar amount" as being the same thing. I find this to be a bit simplistic and perhaps even somewhat naive, because it shows little to no appreciation for behavioral economics. Not all economics is positive. Actually a lot of it is normative. Hence ... political economy. For instance, in many, if not all, severely poor third world countries people survive on $2 dollars day. Imagine if you taxed them even $0.10/day. Catastrophe! Each penny in this case is utterly necessary. Due to this we need to look at value of currency not just quantity.
Maybe we could just go to a user tax system. If you have six members in your family you pay a higher tax than someone who is single. Would you like that?
And by the way, does not the new patient care act instill at even a greater pressure the same decision?
So it sounds like you're pissed off about illegals getting tax deductions by lying about how many dependents they have? Yeah, that's definitely a problem. I also don't like that it has the potential to encourage people to have more children (okay not so much but it's a minor factor). I think it's a hard problem. However I think there's a better solution than a flat tax. Perhaps the idea you've mentioned above could have some merit. I'll have to think on it.
Really, what you're arguing for is equalization of wealth. ... If I have enough jack in my pocket to buy a Hawaii island, someone gets that money.
No, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing for a sensitivity to the value of money and that this is why tax brackets are a good thing. I don't have a problem with the rich. In fact I know quite a few people who fall into this category. If the money is being used for some purpose. Awesome! However if the money is primarily sitting in a location where it isn't being touched (e.g. nine pallets of $1 billion dollars worth of money as ART). Now THAT is a problem. This is why cash flow is typically the most important thing in a functioning society. It's also why when cash is distributed towards the bottom we often get a thriving economy because money is constantly moving from one person to the next. Personally I think this is why severely depressed economies often make their own local currencies because people are still capable of doing work for one another. It's just that the physical money itself is scarce. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if people start reverting back to the whole pieces-of-eight model and just start clipping coins or dollar bills.