10 ms·

'The paragraph you're quoting from is in a section that could have been titled "Fuck It, It's A Regressive Tax But It's Still Good".' (Sorry it's been so long

'The paragraph you're quoting from is in a section that could have been titled "Fuck It, It's A Regressive Tax But It's Still Good".' (Sorry it's been so long since I replied last, I hope you notice this.) That's exactly right, 'regressive' is not necessarily bad. The top 10% of earners right now pay something around 70% of all income tax: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco.... Is that 'fair'? What is the 'correct' number? Food for thought. At any rate, the reason the Fair Tax's 'regression' isn't bad, is the estimated increase in tax burden for the middle class is around 2-3%. HOWEVER, the estimated wage benefits of the Fair Tax total 5-10%. So, even though the middle class is paying a higher share than now, its net income would go up 2-8%. That's a win, plus the entire IRS and income tax apparatus is gone - another huge win. Given the political abuses the IRS has facilitated lately, it needs to go. We don't need an American Gestapo.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Anyone that talks about how much the top x% of earners pay of federal income tax in isolation -- especially without talking about their share of income, but not only then -- is either ignorant or dishonest. The federal income tax isn't the only federal tax on income, or even the most burdensome for most workers (federal payroll taxes are.) And it doesn't eliminate the need for a tax collection and enforcement apparatus, as all other existing consumption taxes demonstrate, so saying it eliminates the need for that is inaccurate.
- ElectronCharge 12y ago
  It eliminates the need for the IRS. Verification of consumption tax collection is enormously easier, and there would no longer be all the loopholes, or the ~75,000 page(!) tax code. Most importantly, those paying the taxes would no longer be under any tax-related government scrutiny. Fourth Amendment, anyone? :-)

dragonwriter 12y ago

Anyone that talks about how much the top x% of earners pay of federal income tax in isolation -- especially without talking about their share of income, but not only then -- is either ignorant or dishonest. The federal income tax isn't the only federal tax on income, or even the most burdensome for most workers (federal payroll taxes are.) And it doesn't eliminate the need for a tax collection and enforcement apparatus, as all other existing consumption taxes demonstrate, so saying it eliminates the need for that is inaccurate.

ElectronCharge 12y ago
It eliminates the need for the IRS. Verification of consumption tax collection is enormously easier, and there would no longer be all the loopholes, or the ~75,000 page(!) tax code. Most importantly, those paying the taxes would no longer be under any tax-related government scrutiny. Fourth Amendment, anyone? :-)