Among the many tax-reform proposals floating about, one of the most interesting was the flat tax (which, contrary to the formulation of the above Resolution, is indeed an income tax, as opposed to a consumption tax). The version being propounded by Texas Congressman Dick Armey (and developed with the help of the National Center for Policy Analysis) would exempt from taxation the first $36,000 of annual income (for a couple with two children), and then tax all income over the threshold at 20 per cent. Period. No loopholes, no deductions. Mr. Buckley explains why the plan doesn't violate his criterion of equal treatment under the law: "Equal treatment under the law does not forbid amnesties, forbidding only class distinctions negative in character. It is one thing to say that an American who does not earn a living wage should be spared taxation, another to say that those who earn twice or more than twice a living wage should be penalized progressively." Mr. Thurow comes out swinging for the Negative side: "If you had a flat tax, it wouldn't be simpler [than the 1040 short form] because the problem is not deductions, but calculating your income. You are still going to have to calculate professional income,... you are still going to have to calculate your stock gains and losses. And if you look at deductions, a lot of them simply cannot be eliminated completely. Take the medical deduction. My first wife had a very serious illness and died, and I had a couple years when my medical bills were bigger than my total income. You're going to tell me I can't deduct them? ..." The participants have all come bristling with ammunition, and we swing bracingly from statistics to ethics and justice.