From BHI/fairtaxorg:"Households in the lowest income band,with an adj. gross income (AGI) of less than $10,000 annually, would benefit because they would receive the prebate that would more than offset any higher cost of purchasing goods. Households in the top income cat.,with more than $150,000 in annual income,would also gain as they do not have to pay their highest marginal tax rates. Mid-income cat. households would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them.
Is the FT/NASTI progressive or regressive?Here is the quote from one of the Beacon Hill treatises on the AFT site:
"The key result of the foregoing discussion is that it matters fundamentally how one frames the discussion of the distributional effects of the FairTax. When people are sorted by expenditure per capita, the FairTax is progressive; when they are sorted by income per capita, it is regressive."
Those who undertand what this means now understand what a bad idea the "Fair" Tax is.
Is the FT/NASTI progressive or regressive?Here is the quote from one of the Beacon Hill treatises on the AFT site:
"The key result of the foregoing discussion is that it matters fundamentally how one frames the discussion of the distributional effects of the FairTax. When people are sorted by expenditure per capita, the FairTax is progressive; when they are sorted by income per capita, it is regressive."
Those who undertand what this means now understand what a bad idea the "Fair" Tax is.
Their own research shows that it would on average raise the taxes of those who amek from about $15,000 to $150,000 a year and would LOWER the taxes of those who make more than $150,000 a year. It is a direct attack on the middleclasses, raising their taxes to lower the taxes of the wealthy. Again, see Americans for Fair Taxation's own research at fairtax org: tiny url 593htl, page 30 on, especially Table 13 yrs 7-8 and 15-16.
There really is no debate, as Americans For Fair Taxation's OWN RESEARCH states this fact: the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax-Inclusive aka NASTI would on average raise the effective taxes (i.e. raise the amount of taxes they pay) of those making from around $15,000 to $150,000 ,and would on average lower the taxes paid by those who make more than $150,000 a year. It is a very bad idea, and would destroy the US economy if enacted. Thankfully it never will even be considered for a vote.
This has been flagged as spam show
From BHI/fairtaxorg:"Households in the lowest income band,with an adj. gross income (AGI) of less than $10,000 annually, would benefit because they would receive the prebate that would more than offset any higher cost of purchasing goods. Households in the top income cat.,with more than $150,000 in annual income,would also gain as they do not have to pay their highest marginal tax rates. Mid-income cat. households would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them.
Diskatopia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is the FT/NASTI progressive or regressive?Here is the quote from one of the Beacon Hill treatises on the AFT site:
"The key result of the foregoing discussion is that it matters fundamentally how one frames the discussion of the distributional effects of the FairTax. When people are sorted by expenditure per capita, the FairTax is progressive; when they are sorted by income per capita, it is regressive."
Those who undertand what this means now understand what a bad idea the "Fair" Tax is.
Diskatopia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is the FT/NASTI progressive or regressive?Here is the quote from one of the Beacon Hill treatises on the AFT site:
"The key result of the foregoing discussion is that it matters fundamentally how one frames the discussion of the distributional effects of the FairTax. When people are sorted by expenditure per capita, the FairTax is progressive; when they are sorted by income per capita, it is regressive."
Those who undertand what this means now understand what a bad idea the "Fair" Tax is.
Diskatop 1 month ago
Their own research shows that it would on average raise the taxes of those who amek from about $15,000 to $150,000 a year and would LOWER the taxes of those who make more than $150,000 a year. It is a direct attack on the middleclasses, raising their taxes to lower the taxes of the wealthy. Again, see Americans for Fair Taxation's own research at fairtax org: tiny url 593htl, page 30 on, especially Table 13 yrs 7-8 and 15-16.
Diskatop 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There really is no debate, as Americans For Fair Taxation's OWN RESEARCH states this fact: the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax-Inclusive aka NASTI would on average raise the effective taxes (i.e. raise the amount of taxes they pay) of those making from around $15,000 to $150,000 ,and would on average lower the taxes paid by those who make more than $150,000 a year. It is a very bad idea, and would destroy the US economy if enacted. Thankfully it never will even be considered for a vote.
Diskatop 1 month ago