[A. Pole]

A regressive tax policy (when measured in terms of tax rates) is not such a bad idea. If I earn $100,000 and the guy next door earns $50,000, then it would be nice to think that I should pay twice as much in taxes as he does. But if he's no less likely to call the fire department in an emergency, no less likely to send his kids to the local public school, etc., then I would effectively be subsidizing him under those circumstances.

The regressive tax policy - a jolly good idea! This might be a winning ticket in 2006/2008.

[Alberta's Child]

A policy of regressive taxation sure won't win elections, but it certainly would improve things. Just imagine how many of our social ills would be cured if people were taxed based on their use of public assets and infrastructure -- regardless of their "ability to pay."

And how ironic is it that we argue the political feasibility of this point here on FreeRepublic, while the economic boom of the late 1990s (under a Democratic administration) was largely the result of an increasingly regressive tax policy that combined the tax hikes of 1993 (especially the higher Federal excise taxes and the new tax on Social Security benefits) and the capital gains tax cuts of 1995 and 1998 that were specifically aimed at "the rich."