This is Wednesday’s
Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.
Here’s a fact-based opinion from a real (as opposed to fake, like typical Democratic leadership) liberal concerning the nature and effect of the Fair Tax. Now, while I normally view anything from a “liberal” stance with as much skepticism as I view comments from s soi-disant “conservative” politicians, this guy makes some good points.
Which led to me calling him a real liberal in my opening remark.
Read, and tell me what you think. It’s a little long for a blogpost, but very much worth your time to read. Please do.
Reprinted with permission from Running in Circles
by Connor Carney
The Progressive Democrats’ Sales Tax
I consider myself to be fairly liberal on most issues. So some of you might be surprised that I am about to take a position that’s usually the providence of hardcore conservatives. I support HR25—the Fair Tax Act of 2005.
Yeah. The one that would replace virtually the entire tax system with a 23% sales tax.
I read about it most recently in an unnecessarily hostile editorial by Matthew Holmes. Truth be told, his article did nothing to convince me that the tax is a good thing. But it convinced me to wade through the full text of the legislation, and I’ve decided that not only is the Fair Tax Act justifiable, it is the ideal legislation for progressive Democrats. I’ll explain why.
Defining “Progressiveâ€
I used the word “progressive†up there in my introduction. Exactly what that term means can be a little shaky sometimes, but when we’re talking about tax code, it has a pretty clear meaning: people with more money shoulder more of the tax burden. Using this definition, sales taxes are usually something progressives would avoid, since they often hit the poor the hardest. Most sales taxes make life considerably harder for the impoverished, because they increase the cost of basic necessities, making it harder for people to get by.
A National Luxury Tax
This proposal isn’t like that. The secret lies in Title II, Sections 301-303, a provision called the “family consumption allowance.†These provisions allow families to purchase necessities without paying taxes on them. (“Family†means “1 or more family members sharing a common residenceâ€).
This exemption does something interesting: it means that the government would only get taxes from the sales of nonessentials—things that the impoverished, by definition, don’t buy. By allowing essential products to be purchased without the tax, it turns the “national sales tax†into something more like a “national luxury taxâ€.
In other words, people who spend most of their money on things like food, clothing, and medicine end up paying almost none of the tax burden, while people who spend a greater percentage of their income on luxuries pay a greater percentage of the tax burden. People who don’t have very much money almost uniformly fall into the former group, while people with lots of money almost uniformly fall into the latter group. People with more money shoulder more of the tax burden—it’s as progressive as is gets.
Helping the Needy