My position on the AZ proposal is that it leveling the playing field somewhat. Putting the burden on the top earners just because someone else thinks they can afford it isn't smart policy.
Well, certainly, they can afford to pay more. It's silly to argue that someone who makes several orders of magnitude more than the modal income can't afford to pay any larger percentage of his income.
A more level tax scheme with all citizens paying something is a better way to run things, and more fair, in my view.
The debate of "fair" is, of course, the crux of the matter. Ultimately, it's not going to be "fair" that matters, but what actually works in the real world of politics and economics.
That approach causes causes people and wealth to flee the state (as it has in Maryland) resulting in reduced state revenues.
These are the states with flat tax rates:
Before 2006, six states maintained flat-rate income taxes: Colorado (4.63 percent), Illinois (3.0 percent), Indiana (3.4 percent), Massachusetts (5.3 percent), Michigan (3.07 percent), and Pennsylvania (3.07 percent). Last year, Rhode Island and Utah adopted optional flat taxes of 5.5 and 5.35 percent, respectively. http://www.hoover.org …oover-digest/article/5980
None of those states is showing an influx of wealthy people, so where are they fleeing to? Moreover, all those states are either in the toilet economically or have an alternate means of support.