Subject: A Rebuttal to "Re: Paying a fair share": It seems that Mr. Angel has stated an excellent rebuttal for me, but I wanted to add a point or two regarding the embrace of a flat tax system. I spoke with a couple of friends who are professors at Stockton and wish to share their input. One who teaches in the hard sciences and is a Democrat indicated that he could consider a flat tax if it excluded the necessities of life, but indicated that would result in an income flat tax on income over expenditures for necessities of over 30% and would result in higher taxes for the wealthy. Something they do not desire as under Republicans the taxes on wealth have dramatically declined under our present graduated income tax system and they are able to hide much of their real income from the tax system. The point of looking at who supports the flat tax seems most reveling as made in the response by Mr. Angel. The rich want to pay less and if government is to pay its bills it must raise an equal amount of dollars. That would mean the wealthy would end up paying more. Calling for the getting rid of waste is a good thing but the idea that it takes a flat tax to do that is clearly without merit. What the rich neo-cons want is to defund government, to shrink it so that there is less funding for health care, education, veterans benefits and protection of the environment. As stated again by Mr. Angel the flat tax is a CON that is being marketed to the gullible as a way to cut government income that will result in less funds being available for government's role in providing an equal opportunity for the next generation and to preserve the favored position of the rich and have it passed on based NOT on merit, but on an aristocracy of wealth. That is not the promise of America. I would further call for revenue from the estate tax be dedicated to Social Security, as this seems a reasonable minimum to ask of those who have benefited so greatly from the common wealth. It has always amazed me how Americans assume that their wealth comes out of thin air. Few expend much sweat in accumulating wealth but rather gain it from the sweat of others or simply from the system to which we are all contributors. The Republicans continue the misnaming the estate tax as the "death tax" in their effort to protect the interests of the rich. A common-sense approach to maintaining the long-run solvency of Social Security would be to dedicate the tax to sustaining Social Security. Those gullible Americans who favor Bush's attempt to privatize the program -- with the goal of eliminating it -- need to be reminded of the many poor houses that existed in this country before the passage of the Social Security law. The suggestion to use the estate tax to help fund Social Security is an excellent one. The proponents of eliminating that tax have been claiming for years that it has cost families their farms and businesses, but there is little evidence of that. For almost 70 years, Social Security has lived up to its credo: partial replacement of lost income. Just ask the millions of seniors, disabled and widows who would be destitute without it. LAT