the short explanation is this: because 10% of a $100 grocery bill is more of a problem to the people paying it than the 10% of a $1000 catering bill would be to someone at a higher income level. In other words, the pain isn't measured by number of dollars, it's in the choices required to pay the dollars.
I really don't want to get into this -- I know Cam and I will probably never agree on this, for one thing. But that is what people are talking about when they say a sales tax is not progressive. It may take in more total dollars from incomes above a certain level, but below it people are choosing between the daycare, the food and the rent. For example. The definition of "a certain level" may vary depending on who you are talking to. Hope that helps. On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > First, let me say, I am not advocating a 'flat tax' . These are > legitimate questions (not trolling). I really don't understand (and > want to) > > How would it 'hit the poor far more than any other group'? > > How would they (the poor) be paying for 'the rich or upper class > indulgences'? If the rich purchase 'indulgences' wouldn't that benefit > everyone - more money spent = more tax revenue, would it not? > > Again...not trying to be a shit stirrer (this time). I really just > don't understand how this would be considered a 'poor tax'. > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), it > > that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other group. > > Why should they pay for the rich or upper class indulgences? Frankly all > > the proposal I've seen on this could only be classified as a Poor Tax. > > > > On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> "The solution isn't to just raise taxes. It's to also put rules in > place > > to > >>> safe-guard and penalize against hiding your money to avoid paying the > >>> taxes." > >>> > >>> Or ditch the monstrosity that is the progressive income tax and move > to a > >>> national sales tax. > >> > >> I can certainly get behind reforming the tax code to steamline it and > >> remove most (if not all) of the specialized deductions that keep > >> adding entropy to the system. I certainly can't agree on the wisdom of > >> switching from a progressive income tax to a national sales tax > >> though. A progressive income tax is still, philosophically, the right > >> way to go in my opinion. Obviously its current implementation leaves > >> something to be desired. > >> > >> Judah > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348179 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
