I agree that a regressive tax like sales tax is not "fair" at all.
I had a coworker that argued for a flat tax—considered that fair. I explained that anything less than a progressive tax was going to make the poor pay more and the wealthy pay less. Really, that's fair?
You should be so lucky to have enough that you're in the highest tax bracket.
A relatively high 'flat tax' might be palatable to the electorate as long as the first $85,000, give or take, was completely tax-free. People would only have to contribute once their own needs are met and they actually have something left over to contribute.
That’s progressive taxes. Consider that roughly the bottom 60% of Americans have no federal income tax liability, simply because they do not make enough. That 60% cannot meet their basic needs on their incomes, very roughly speaking. Any increase of taxes on them would be regressive.
It’s kind of progressive. Depends on how high the deductible is, it is definitely semi progressive. Tax bands would still be more progressive, it’s why someone making $50k is paying more state income tax in Alabama than they would in California.
Indeed. I should rephrase that I think it would be feasible to use propaganda/marketing to redefine what a "flat tax" is, and make the most popular definition one where the basic living wage is exempt and the "flat tax" only applies to the amount over that.
Through that confusion of language, it might then manage to be popular with both libertarians and progressives.
Mississippi taxes groceries and has a flat income tax (well, it has a deduction at least). That state is just never going to get better.
> I explained that anything less than a progressive tax was going to make the poor pay more and the wealthy pay less.
Here's a formally-verified proof in Lean that with a flat tax, if you have more income, then you pay more tax: https://live.lean-lang.org/#codez=JYWwDg9gTgLgBAWQIYwBYBtgCM...
The theorem uses one important assumption: that the flat tax rate is positive.
I believe everybody understands that a percentage means exactly that.
But if you account for minimum living expenses M, if you are under M, 30% of M is "more" than if you are at 10x M for the quality of your life. What scheme is "fair" is harder to figure out, though.
Yes, I object to that type of language too, but let's not ignore the context.
Yeah, I can't imagine somebody arguing in good faith that a flat tax is fair unless they are completely oblivious to the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of income.