1. Demonstrates that 23% is the correct number to generate the $1.7T necessary to replace the revenue generated by the taxes it is proposed to replace.
2. A study that shows the projected NRST tax burden for each income quintile so that I can compare it to the current distribution of tax burden reported by the Joint Committee on Taxation on page three of this JCT Study
Is there any site on the web that makes the following explicit calculations:
A study that shows the projected NRST tax burden for each income quintile so that I can compare it to the current distribution of tax burden reported by the Joint Committee on Taxation on page three of this JCT Study
Read the following article if you really want to know about tax distribution in this society rather than soundbyte simplistic representaton in the JCT document.
For a discussion on tax distribution and how it relates to the NRST:
What's So Fair About a Tax on Income?
Dan R. Mastromarco of the Argus Group, Washington, argues that an honest examination of the income tax would reveal that it is less fair than a consumption tax.
|
Tax Analysts Document Number: Doc 1999-32575 (25 original pages) Citations: (October 8, 1999) Dan R. Mastromarco is a partner in the Argus Group of Washington, D.C. According to Mastromarco, distributional equity, or rather the perception of distributional equity, is the fulcrum on which the debate over tax reform will pivot. Is a consumption tax "fair" when compared to an income tax translates into: "will taxpayers pay their just share of taxes?" The orthodox wisdom, the author says, is that since the poor consume more of their income than the rich, a sales tax must be less progressive than an income tax; some say it is must even be regressive. However, he argues, this orthodoxy is based less on science than bias. Conclusions about distributive equity cannot be drawn until we (1) resolve the standard by which fairness is judged, and (2) are able to accurately measure distributional burdens against that standard. The author argues the current means of measuring distribution -- income taxes paid over annual income -- presumes the standard is correct. He asserts that other means of measuring distribution, such as taxes paid over consumption, may yield more useful comparisons. Moreover, the author argues, even if we accept the standard that distribution is properly measured as taxes paid over income, the results are today knowingly misrepresentative because they resemble snapshots taken with the wrong lens and the wrong filters. The author asserts that all known biases in distributional methodologies, assumptions, and presentations are now in favor of an income tax. An honest debate over consumption taxes can only follow re-evaluation of distributional assumptions, methods, and manners of presentation. The author recommends steps that can be taken by credible institutions to make honest comparisons of distributional equity. Only then, the author asserts, might a consumption tax can be properly evaluated as the debate progresses. |