Keith Devens .com

I'm curious how you'd address MikeyW's responses to the article. Specifically (comment #17):

"Our tax system is based on the idea that those that benefit the most from greatness of America should contribute the most towards it’s success."

And later (comment #28) when he gives a practical example of this:

"[M]ilitary spending doesn’t protect everyone equally. While the military is protecting the coal miner, his $15K mobile home, and 5yr old F-150 pickup, it’s also protecting Michael Isner, his $350M estate, and vintage collection of Lamborghinis. Now honestly, who has the most to lose if the godless communists overrun the country? And why shouldn’t Isner pay more for that protection?"

It's a philosophical difference. (One that condescending analogies ignore.)

I didn't check the comments beyond what you reproduced here, but judging by what you've copied they seem to miss the point. The analogy wasn't about a flax tax vs. a "progressive" tax (in fact, it assumed a progressive tax). It didn't argue that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes. It merely pointed out that when you have a "tax cut for everybody", "the rich" are always going to get more money back than others (even, as in the analogy, when "the rich" get a smaller percent refund than others). So, the analogy is pointing out that it's silly to cry "tax cut for the rich!" when everybody gets a tax cut.

In fact, I think the analogy is actually very close to what happened in real life.