I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
I suppose we agree to disagree. The other option is a flat consumption tax. Pay according to use. I fail to see how a flat tax is unfair. Of course with a flat tax, some will pay less than they did before, and still pay a whole lot more than those at the bottom of the rung. Greater use of infrastructure? ... You say you understand how percentages work. Since the wealthy do pay more on a flat percentage as they make more, how are they getting a free lunch? The tax paid scales proportionately. Can YOU quantify this greater use of the infrastructure? Or should we just pad that tax rate to make sure? Ah. I don't know why I bother. Your mind is made up, and so is mine. I do know this, I sure would benefit now. But when I started out my working life at the very bottom at $3.35/hr minimum wage, I never supported the idea of soaking those of greater means to pave my way working up the ladder, and voted accordingly.
