|
|
|
|
|
by no-s
1256 days ago
|
|
> Poor people are still going to have document all their income/assets to qualify for a rebate, nope, no qualifications, no means test. Only one rebate per person, same amount for each person, computed from poverty line statistics. Children too, legal guardian collects. > As does Fentanyl, but I bet you don't think it's a good idea to sprinkle it on your cornflakes. I’m not sure how to construe your analogy. I would agree its inappropriate to eat hedge fund participants for breakfast, but OTOH Fentanyl does have a legitimate use even if some might abuse it as a cereal topping. Perhaps you should clarify your original point instead. Fair Tax isn’t really intended to address wealth disparity and the outsize influence of the wealthy. The Fair Tax asserts the defects of the Income Tax outweigh the virtues, particularly WRT to transgressions against individual rights, costs vs benefits, and exceeding limited government. It's an alternative tax system. The macroeconomic impact is debatable, static analysis is probably an error due to the outsize influence of perverse tax incentives. |
|
Ah, so by 'base amount of tax paid' you mean averaged across the population? A rebate generally implies a refund of prior payment, so I found your summary confusing.
I’m not sure how to construe your analogy.
That just because something has a purpose does not imply it is a net good. In general I think high concentrations of wealth are bad on a systemic level, like too much sugar leading to diabetes. So I'm not sure that the capital allocation performed by hedge funds is a necessity for an economy to operate sustainably.