Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the member does not believe in a single flat tax. I appreciate the difficulty the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has in his caucus.
Let me clear up the comment I made last night. The hon. member is an accountant. He knows that MPs currently make $64,000, have a $6,000 tax free travel allowance and a $22,000 living allowance. Those are taxable. Let him dispute right now that we are getting the equivalent of $10,000 a month. He can take that number, put it in his little calculator and figure it all out.
I am suggesting that we get rid of different levels of remuneration for MPs and quit using a low salary of $64,000 as an excuse for a gold plated, three tiered, extravagant, double standard pension plan. That is what the government is trying to justify to Canadian taxpayers. It is not legitimate.
What I suggested last night was in context. The gentleman likes to interrupt speeches, take things out of context, do a little twist, stick the knife in and do a little turn. I am trying to offer a balanced approach to and a balanced solution for MPs' compensation, a salary level where MPs look after their own pensions. They can contribute 5 per cent matched one to one by the government, not three and a half times one as the government is doing now.
Getting back to the specifics of the proportional flat tax or a flat tax, in the current system the tax form is one-quarter inch thick. In our flat tax system it will be one page. There is one line for charitable donations. Whether it is 5 per cent of gross income, 17 per cent of net income or whatever, it can be debated. When a person has a lot of donations and deductions the backup to this one page might be one inch thick.
Perhaps that accountant can get it through his head that I am not talking about everything on one page. There are receipts. It is justified. It is all sent in. That is all people have to worry about to figure out their income tax. He is out of the accounting profession because he is now a politician. He is a wannabe millionaire.
The other point he talked about was the supposed contradiction about the wealthy. The top 10 per cent is not earning $50,000 or over. He does not have his numbers straight. The top 10 per cent is earning $80,000 and over. They are the ones who contribute.
Is that the right number? What is the number? Help me.