Not from me.
Quote:
|
Classical economic analysis indicates that the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) decreases as income increases. Households at the lower end of the income scale are spending almost all of their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen. They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.
(One guy makes 20K, the other 300K)
Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on 5% sales tax.
Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.
Poor Boy has 5 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car. Rich Boy hardly feels sales taxes.
Then run the numbers on a $30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy triples.
Sales tax is NOT a flat tax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other examples of regressive taxes and fees.
Most per-unit taxes are regressive. For example, in real estate, a $1,000/yr per lot assessment fee is not uncommon in some areas. (for things like fire and sewer, etc) That's a fair chunk for a $200,000 home, hardly nothing for a $2,000,000 home in the same assessment district.
Here is an example of a per-unit tax also of the "sin tax" variety, combining two of the most regressive of all taxes. In California, a (say) $1/gallon of alcoholic beverage tax was enacted, then quickly repealed. The reason was, this was a major tax bite on a six-pack of beer, and almost nothing on a $150 bottle of champagne, or a $60 bottle of scotch or wine. Often sin-taxes are easy for politicians, not this time. There was a similar per-unit "snack tax" that met a similar fate because of potato chips v. caviar and such. These amplifications of the tax rate discrepancy work in conjunction with the normal regressive sales tax functions.
That outlines the basic ideas and theory of regressive taxation.
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html
This is the conclusion of the very very economically conservative CATO (who never saw a rich man or a business they did not like)
Quote:
|
The results in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that a shift from the current income tax to a broad-based retail sales tax would be a regressive shift, whether measured on an annual or a lifetime income basis.
|
Not surprisingly they go on to argue this should be ignored in favor of "efficiency"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html
Quote:
|
Sales taxes are generally regressive, that is, poorer people tend to pay a greater percentage of their income in sales tax than richer people, because they tend to spend a far higher percentage of their income. In some locations, items such as food, clothing, or prescription drugs are exempt from sales taxes ostensibly to alleviate the burden on the poor. Some of these exemptions (such as exemptions for clothing or prescription drugs) actually may make the tax more regressive, since poorer individuals may spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on these items than do richer individuals.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax