Come on, People (including you politicians), we don't necessarily have to worry about a flat deduction of $36,000 (Forbes's idea) before any taxes are paid.

We don't need to worry about whether or not middle income America can deduct mortgage interest payments as Dole advocates.

We don't need to worry about whether investment income or interest from banks should be taxed (most of us don't have enough to worry about, anyway). We don't even need to be concerned with the concept, `net income.' For certain, we don't need to worry about whether or not the government will have enough to operate on. Afterall, no matter how much it has received in the past, it hasn't been able to operate on it. One might daresay that if we doubled the amount the government receives each year from income taxes, it still wouldn't stay in the black. Hence, we have had and will always have a national debt [Special addendum: Correctable if the Constitution is enforced].

In fact, to make a long story short, we really don't have to be concerned about any of the problems that professional politicians act as if they are worried about or start and maintain controversies over.

We must keep in mind that one of any politician's best tools for staying in office is to keep things complicated and confusing and, let's say, by not presenting the truth in an easily understood manner. Thus, only he/she understands and, seemingly, has the answers.

The intention of the writer is to clearly describe two different income tax methods, systems that are simple to understand and to incorporate while saving tax payers billions of dollars every year. Either will lower the tax liability for the majority of Americans.

Another positive aspect of the two alternatives to the present system is there will not be any `loop-holes' for the more affluent people to take advantage of.

Finally, neither will allow for `special interest' groups. Wouldn't that cheer everyone up, excepting, of course, the special interest groups and the politicians that support them or are supported by them?

The first system is the simplest of all imaginable, other than no income taxes at all, that is [Special note: As specified in the Constitution]. Why this system hasn't been incorporated can only be due to the government desiring a complex system for some reason we don't know about.

To make the system work, there are only two factors that any of us need be concerned with. The first is whether or not an accurate GROSS income can be determined for every individual and every individual businees, whether a 10,000 dollar `in home' operation or a multi-billion dollar corporation, regardless of the complexity of its holdings.

Already, one can see another advantage if the system were adopted. There wouldn't be any reason for any legal corporation to have dummy companies or hide its holdings for tax purposes or use it to claim non-existent losses.

The second consideration to be handled is whether or not every person can figure percentages of their income. If one does have a problem with this, it would be quite easy to solve the problem with a simple income-tax-liability table that would be far cheaper to print than the present volume of tax material printed every year.

What percentage are we talking about? With every person and corporation paying its fair share, it is conceivable that we might only be talking about two to five percent of the GROSS income, not the net income. There are reasons for this that will be discussed below.

How simple it would be. An individual who makes $15,000 a year sends in (I'm sure Congress will soon give themselves another raise so we'll use 5 per cent) $750. Likewise, a business grossing $150,000 a year would send in $7,500.

If everyone is following this, a major corporation grossing $150,000,000 would send in, you've got it, $7,500,000. By the way, this also includes all Japanese or foreign companies that are not currently paying any income taxes in this country. Fair is fair and, since they are earning American dollars, those dollars need to be taxed just like the ones we earn.

A class of people who must be considered are senior citizens, defined as being 66 years of age or older. In the writer's opinion, they should not have any tax liability unless they are bringing in more than the average national per capita income. If a couple, then the requirement would be double the national per capita income. Afterall, they paid their dues as many have been paying taxes for 40 years or more.

A second group that should be exepted is military retirees. This would apply only to their military retirement income, not any other income. Duty is not always pleasant and, as far as this writer is concerned, military people paid their dues while earning the retirement pay. The government has removed more and more of their retirement benefits (but none of their own) and it would be morally right to not tax what retirement pay they get.

See. There just aren't any loopholes to contend with. The taxation is fair (and less than what we once fought a war over) and most certainly, equitable. Five percent is five percent whether it is of a dollar or a million dollars. The ratio is identical. So, no special interests groups can exist. Now, another problem has been removed that Congress created.

The second flat tax possibility is nearly as simple. There is actually just a very simple modification to the above system. The government knows and sets what is known as the poverty level. First, any person not earning above the poverty level would not have a tax liability at all.

In other words, it would be utilizing Mr. Steve Forbes's idea of a flat deduction, estimated by the writer to be $24,000 for, as an example, a family of four. Why $24,000? Because that is the upper limit of qualifying for subsidy housing.

And, to make sure this remains clear, as in the first system for the same reasons, no senior citizen who earns less than the national per capita income would have tax liability. And, as in the first alternative, military retirement pay would be exempted.

In this system, tax liability is figured by taking, let's use five percent again, five percent of the net above the poverty level. If the poverty level is $10,000 dollars and the person earns $12,000, then his tax liability is five percent of the net, $2,000, or $100. That doesn't sound like much but any person living at near poverty level can tell you there are times that a $100 seems like a thousand.

To reiterate, the only deduction (excluding senior citizens and retired military) allowed would be the poverty level. To major businesses or high-income businesses, this amount would not have any real affect but, for the poverty stricken, it could be the difference between eating and heating in the winter. It would be fair and equitable. And, that is what we all want, isn't it?

Very large businesses are very apt to bitch but, hey, they have had every loop-hole available for generations or, at least, since the success of their business.

Besides, people with companies earning millions, billions of dollars a year are far more able to afford taxes. What can they do with all the extra money gained through loopholes, anyway, expand and make more money? If that successful, they can expand to their little hearts' desire, anyway. Isn't that right, Wal-Mart Corportion?

Isn't it about time that the major companies and others with terrifically high incomes start giving some of it back to the people who made them big, their own employees and customers. What fairer way to do it than having those companies bearing the brunt of the tax burden?

And, we mustn't forget about insurance companies. If they had to pay income taxes on the gross incomes brought in by them, lower incomes, from possibly lower-middle down to lower-lower income levels could conceivably be relieved of any tax burden. At least the money would be used for a good cause, support of the country and the people who made their incomes possible.

Middle income America has supported America long enough. It's time they quit having to bite the bullet come tax time. Anyway, the percentage paid by businesses wouldn't be higher than anyone else's.

Lower- to middle-income America has for the most part paid taxes on 100 percent of income. Deductions that are possible when only bringing in $12,000 doesn't help much. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have the 1040EZ form, would we?

Even deductions possible on a $24,000 annual income really don't help much because most people at this overall low income level do not have enough deductions to qualify for the long form. So, Dole, forget about your opposition that mortgage interest wouldn't be deductable.

So, get with it, Politicians. Pull your heads out for once and look at a situation in full light. Quit worrying about your special interest groups and whether or not a change is good for you and those groups. Seriously take a look a simplifying the system. Just look at the million upon millions that could be saved by NOT having to print all the complex forms and booklets that must be printed each and every year. Imagine a form this simple:

Name: _______________ SS# ___-__-_____ Spouse's Name: __________________ SS# ___-__-____ Address:
Street or PO Box: ___________________
City: ____________
State: ________________
Zipcode: ____________

Gross Income: ___________________ X 5 percent (0.05) = ______________ (Combined, if married) Taxes Due

Special Instructions: If retired military, do not include retirement pay in Gross Income.

If 65 or older, do not include any income less than the national deduc tion allowed.

Example: National deduction - $24,000 Income - $26.500 Adjusted Gross Income - $2,500 X 0.05 Taxes Due - $125

Wouldn't such a simple form be great. Instead of thousands of forms now processed, only a small percentage would be necessary.

No longer would auditing be a worry or an expense. What would there be to audit?

800 IRS numbers would no longer be necessary, nor would we need the thousands of personnel required by the present system. And, as one lady at the IRS stated when the writer brought up this possibility to her, "Hey, it's fine with me; go for it. I'm trainable."

Plus, there is a quite serious problem that would be taken care of. Admit it. Not you or anyone else can interpret the get down and get dirty complexities of the current taxtion system. Even IRS experts cannot agree on all parts of the codes. That problem would be done away with.

If we don't have to worry about deductions, one of the sources of loopholes, we don't have to worry about the complexities as there wouldn't be any. Therefore, millions would be saved in postage, telephone calls, hiring of additional people during tax time, prosecution of offenders detected during audits, and so on.

Don't forget the importance of saving money, rather than making money. The billions in savings of tax payers' dollars would go a long ways in making up for any imaginary lossese due to middle and low income people paying a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes.

So, Politicians, do us all a favor and simplify the system as it should have been simplified generations ago. And, for pete's sake, make it work by staying in budget even if it means you can't have a raise and increased retirement benefits.

Why, you ask? Because, by gosh, we have to.