The fact is that due to capitalism's inherent income disparity there will always be a need to redress the balance slightly to give people on low incomes even a modest standard of living. I'm not saying that everyone on a low income deserves to be looked after, but I'm sure even you wouldn't let a layabout's children starve? It's unfortunate that the system allows people on benefits to have as many kids as they wish while hard working people can't afford to, but what's the alternative? Any more than two kids on benefits and they are taken straight into care at birth? I'm pretty sure that many people on benefits have got a higher standard of living than my family and me right now, with our childcare at equivalent of £35k for a five day week. I don't think that's fair, but the needy have to be looked after, or we really are going back to the dark ages. It's taken hundreds of years to get to a point where social mobility is at least a remote option. Flat rate taxation and reduction of benefits would leave a high proportion of the population literally starving. What's to be done then? Even the essentials that you talked about like a loaf of bread or a pound of potatoes or a pint of milk or a gas bill place a massive burden on the poorest, while barely making a dent in the disposable income of the richest. This is why taxation has to be progressive. I want the wealthiest to still be the wealthiest once they have paid their tax. Most of them deserve their money, but they should also have no problem where everybody has at least a modest standard of living. I think it is incredibly selfish to believe flat rate taxation is fair, and even more selfish to go to the trouble of avoiding paying their legal obligation in tax just so that they can buy a second home or a new Range Rover...