So someone making 50k/year should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than someone making $5 million/year?
So, from what I've read thus far, this would ultimately amount to a tax increase for 80% of taxpayers. But since it's got the buzz phrase "eliminate tax" in it, ideologues are all over it like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Seems about right.
Tim Barfield said they would like to structure it in a manner that is revenue neutral to the state and taxpayer. To acheive this the state would implement a sliding rebate system.
Billy Tauzin proposed ending the federal income tax and starting a national sales tax years ago. It was a great idea that would have increased standards of living across the board (necessities like food would have been exempt and not taxed). But it was trashed by congress because they would have lost way too much powers of corruption and powerful social engineering tools.
At the very least? so you are okay with lower income and lower wealth people paying a higher percentage of income in taxes because they are paying a smaller actual amount in taxes? I'm just trying to understand your position because if that is your argument, I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that argument. Not even your boy RP I don't think.
There are lots of proponents of flat tax systems. The problem is a flat income tax still results in regressive taxation, as other taxes still exist. Regressive taxes are terrible because they kill the purchasing power of the vast majority of the economic actors, ie. everyone but the wealthy.
I understand that. Plenty of flat tax proponents but it sounds like Rex still thinks that is unfair to higher earners. I'm just trying to clarify what he meant by " at least"
