Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yes, they are in fact opposites.
Not at all, opposites would be having lower and middle tax payers paying the highest margin while having rich earners paying the lowest margin.
I should of phrased it differently, they are considered regressive because they aren't punitively progressive.
They are sold as being less onerous on the middle class which does not betray that they will be more onerous on the middle class. That is why they are regressive from the point of view of the middle class.
I haven't made that claim, the middle class should pay their fair share.
They don't, they pay less than half of those costs and represent at least half of the population.
It's wrong.
As they should since they own a majority of the wealth. The problem is that with the National sales tax more burden will be shifted to the middle class.
As it should be, they should be paying their share of the costs.
Who do you think the 3 trillion dollar war to conquer the middle east for their oil is going to benefit the most? Or the 1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that Bush gave away?
The tax cuts benefited everyone, everyone got a tax rate cut.
The lowest tax rates were reduced from 15% to 10% but because the rich pay the majority of taxes they benefited the most while the poor pay practically no taxes they benefited the least.
You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay taxes in the first place.