Those people wanting a flat tax, fair tax or a similar tax by any other name ought to be in favor of the Buffet Tax.

The tax is named for billionaire investor extraordinaire Warren Buffet, who bemoans the fact he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. This rule, if enacted, would only impact those Americans annually earning more than $1 million.

Buffet paid an affordable 14 percent, while his secretary who, no doubt, doesn’t even earn one-tenth of 1 percent of what Buffet does, is paying 25 percent. Well, that doesn’t sound fair, especially when the lower paid individual is paying a larger share of his or her total income toward taxes.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins R-Kan., called the proposal a political gimmick that doesn’t create a single job. That might be true, but it certainly could help pay off this country’s enormous deficit. While Jenkins might believe this is a ploy, others see it as a way to carefully identify areas where the government legitimately can even the playing field to support the financial needs for government services — including paying Jenkins’ salary.

All government expenses come at a cost. While some costs come down, others continue to go up. That infrastructure shouldn’t all be on the backs of Main Street’s proverbial working people when others can chip in and pay their fair share.

The Buffet Tax initiative was voted down in committee by the U.S. Senate last week, which consequently kept it from going to the floor for a vote. Surely these millionaires understand the equity of paying their fair share. Some politicians complain this kind of fair taxation would impede small business owners’ job creation efforts. The Small Business Majority research organization, however, said just one small business owner in 500 earns in excess of $1 million, so few would be affected.

While some people believe such a change would further complicate the tax system (they may be right), it is unlikely the U.S. tax system will be fixed anytime soon. This interim step would equalize tax rates a little more than we have now. That makes good sense for all of us.

Jenkins should put her financial adeptness toward helping to craft a better tax code. Though she can’t do it alone, we have confidence she could develop a plan fair for all. We’re counting on her.               

— Jeanny Sharp, editor and publisher