Flat taxes are the definition of regressive. The hole in your logic is that billionaires don't consume products like gasoline at a level representative of their enormous wealth. The idea that flat taxes ate fair is a ridiculous lie, told by the rich, as an effort to continue to screw the poor.
Number 1, regressive and progressive are just terms made up for one to sound negative and one to sound positive. An idea is either good or bad.
Number 2, is the difference in what the tax funds. Gasoline taxes go to roads, so those programs would stay the exact same. Income tax, that pays for stupid social stuff, would go away or have to be funded by other things, which it would be. So no, everyone would still pay the same, depending on what you consume. Could be housing, jets, boats, whatever. Would generate enormous amounts of jobs.
But there again, I do tend to agree with you that a 100% flat tax would have some unintended consequences. There needs to be SOME redistribution by government oversight, but not as much as you say.
Omg, this sounds like Fox News logic. Get tha guvment outta my life!
Typical Bible_Belt shame phrase, check.
I guess you are saying Ronald Reagan was a socialist? By today's standards, he probably would be.
Typical false evidence to support shame phrase, check.
The law is blatant corporate welfare. It amazes me how people can be sold ideas like this. All hail corporate profits!
Finally, you come back to your opinion, al
Anyways, onto the issue. You either pay higher taxes or you pay a private firm. Or #3, you do your taxes yourself without the help of government software. Who cares?
The net benefit of any of this is negligible. In that vein though, I tend to agree, why pass the law to begin with, but it doesn't matter if they do.
