A high school degree hardly opens any doors these days. Particularly since the actual education gleaned from high school is widely variable thanks in large part due to the means in which public schools are funded. If you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps to climb out of a richer person's vagina and are surrounded by real estate that has a relatively good value, your school is likely going to be well funded and offer a large swath of potential opportunities. If it's a cold and gray Chicago morning and you're the latest little baby boy that's born in the ghetto (in the ghetto) then odds are you're not going to have anywhere near the same opportunities in your education. Even though that is the great equalizer in our aspirationally meritocratic society.
And all this means we should overtax the wealthier people again how? Yes there are different income groups in America. But becoming rich does not mean you owe more to the government.
Apparently you missed my earlier comment on this:
The things that our society has decided it wants the government to do requires a lot of money. The amount is such that if you took a nominally equal amount from each person, or each household, per year, it would financially ruin a sizable chunk of the nation. Whether or not it's "fair" is irrelevant; the only way to maintain any form of government anywhere comparable to what we currently have is to make the wealthy pay more than the poor. Even if you cut the size of the government by, like, 75%, you would still need to tax the wealthy more in order to not completely destroy the economy and the people operating within it.
We tax progressively because we quite literally have no other choice.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
And all this means we should overtax the wealthier people again how? Yes there are different income groups in America. But becoming rich does not mean you owe more to the government.
Apparently you missed my earlier comment on this:
The things that our society has decided it wants the government to do requires a lot of money. The amount is such that if you took a nominally equal amount from each person, or each household, per year, it would financially ruin a sizable chunk of the nation. Whether or not it's "fair" is irrelevant; the only way to maintain any form of government anywhere comparable to what we currently have is to make the wealthy pay more than the poor. Even if you cut the size of the government by, like, 75%, you would still need to tax the wealthy more in order to not completely destroy the economy and the people operating within it.
We tax progressively because we quite literally have no other choice.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
Yes, I'm sure there won't be any issues with collecting money at all if we use the honor system.
And all this means we should overtax the wealthier people again how? Yes there are different income groups in America. But becoming rich does not mean you owe more to the government.
Apparently you missed my earlier comment on this:
The things that our society has decided it wants the government to do requires a lot of money. The amount is such that if you took a nominally equal amount from each person, or each household, per year, it would financially ruin a sizable chunk of the nation. Whether or not it's "fair" is irrelevant; the only way to maintain any form of government anywhere comparable to what we currently have is to make the wealthy pay more than the poor. Even if you cut the size of the government by, like, 75%, you would still need to tax the wealthy more in order to not completely destroy the economy and the people operating within it.
We tax progressively because we quite literally have no other choice.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
That would work if the government would make nearly as much revenue off of the wealthy people buying shit as they would just taxing their income. I guess you might theoretically make some of the money back because the tax would affect the middle class more, but screwing over the middle class is a retarded idea. You would also need a huge government organization in order to make sure that there isn't tax evasion. The organization would also have to help decide what is and isn't considered a final product for sale. This organization would need a name.
And all this means we should overtax the wealthier people again how? Yes there are different income groups in America. But becoming rich does not mean you owe more to the government.
Apparently you missed my earlier comment on this:
The things that our society has decided it wants the government to do requires a lot of money. The amount is such that if you took a nominally equal amount from each person, or each household, per year, it would financially ruin a sizable chunk of the nation. Whether or not it's "fair" is irrelevant; the only way to maintain any form of government anywhere comparable to what we currently have is to make the wealthy pay more than the poor. Even if you cut the size of the government by, like, 75%, you would still need to tax the wealthy more in order to not completely destroy the economy and the people operating within it.
We tax progressively because we quite literally have no other choice.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
That would work if the government would make nearly as much revenue off of the wealthy people buying shit as they would just taxing their income. I guess you might theoretically make some of the money back because the tax would affect the middle class more, but screwing over the middle class is a retarded idea. You would also need a huge government organization in order to make sure that there isn't tax evasion. The organization would also have to help decide what is and isn't considered a final product for sale. This organization would need a name.
Oh I got it. Men In Black! Oh wait, that's taken? Shit.
Anyway, it's just a national sales tax. And all these conspiracy theories I hear haven't happened on a state level, where sales taxes are in ample supply. You don't wanna pay tax on food? Grow a garden. The Vegans will thank you.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
Am I mistaken, or does income tax revenue account for vastly more than $10 billion of total revenue? Like, an order of magnitude or two more?
It does, but what we're talking about is replacing that revenue with a different form of revenue, one which can be individually controlled on a consumer level. The number you should be concerned with in that matter would be the difference between the income raised by a sales tax in comparison to the income raised by income tax. Depending on the percentage, it can be made equal.
EDIT: Oh and anyone below the poverty line gets a rebate apparently, so they pay no sales tax.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
Am I mistaken, or does income tax revenue account for vastly more than $10 billion of total revenue? Like, an order of magnitude or two more?
It does, but what we're talking about is replacing that revenue with a different form of revenue, one which can be individually controlled on a consumer level. The number you should be concerned with in that matter would be the difference between the income raised by a sales tax in comparison to the income raised by income tax. Depending on the percentage, it can be made equal.
Sure, but is there any reason to believe that it would be anywhere near equal? The very wealthy (whom contributed most of the income tax revenue) would likely funnel that extra cash into investments. I'm not too sure on the economics of it, but would that money eventually find its way into a consumer exchange?
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
Am I mistaken, or does income tax revenue account for vastly more than $10 billion of total revenue? Like, an order of magnitude or two more?
It does, but what we're talking about is replacing that revenue with a different form of revenue, one which can be individually controlled on a consumer level. The number you should be concerned with in that matter would be the difference between the income raised by a sales tax in comparison to the income raised by income tax. Depending on the percentage, it can be made equal.
Sure, but is there any reason to believe that it would be anywhere near equal? The very wealthy (whom contributed most of the income tax revenue) would likely funnel that extra cash into investments. I'm not too sure on the economics of it, but would that money eventually find its way into a consumer exchange?
It would also have to make up for the "payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes".
Did you just say that the decline of taxes on the rich to the same rates as the middleclass would result in a 10 billion dollar shortfall, which would be made up by not having to operate the IRS imbalanced?
Also - freeing up extra money for investment doesn't really stimulate the economy very much. We aren't exactly operating in an environment which is short on capital.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
Am I mistaken, or does income tax revenue account for vastly more than $10 billion of total revenue? Like, an order of magnitude or two more?
It does, but what we're talking about is replacing that revenue with a different form of revenue, one which can be individually controlled on a consumer level. The number you should be concerned with in that matter would be the difference between the income raised by a sales tax in comparison to the income raised by income tax. Depending on the percentage, it can be made equal.
Sure, but is there any reason to believe that it would be anywhere near equal? The very wealthy (whom contributed most of the income tax revenue) would likely funnel that extra cash into investments. I'm not too sure on the economics of it, but would that money eventually find its way into a consumer exchange?
Probably. I think they were saying the rate would be around 23% which sounds like a lot until you realize you're not getting taxed at ALL on your income -- unless your state has specific income tax rules. I found a PDF which compares the flat tax and fair tax, but I don't know how reliable its data is since the first fair tax bill was in 2001. I don't think anyone has moved on the issue since then.
I guess I shouldn't get too caught up in this discussion. Half of me wants a 100% inheritance tax, and I'd seem like a loon if I were to suggest that. >_>
Did you just say that the decline of taxes on the rich to the same rates as the middleclass would result in a 10 billion dollar shortfall, which would be made up by not having to operate the IRS imbalanced?
It definitely wouldn't, in which case my fiscal conservatism would show its face. The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork. I'm all for the line item veto, even if it's for the next president down the line, regardless of political party.
The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork.
Social programs are worthless crap now? Decent roads and public schools are crap? Nearly every bill called a pork barrel bill has a decent economic or public reason for being constructed.
The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork.
Social programs are worthless crap now?
Not all of them! Many of them are, see that one guy with the stupid question mark suit with the book on how to get free money from the government. Congressmen should buy that book and use it as a tool to close up loose spending. To be honest, the best way to start cutting pork barrel spending is to make sure current pork can't proceed. If you fix the leak, then you can work on the main issue.
I think of it like immigration. If you don't fix the borders, you can't really kick out all illegal immigrants and think the problem is going to go away. So yeah, the first step is the line item veto and for Congress not to even try introducing those earmarks.
The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork.
Social programs are worthless crap now?
Not all of them! Many of them are, see that one guy with the stupid question mark suit with the book on how to get free money from the government. Congressmen should buy that book and use it as a tool to close up loose spending.
You have to qualify for nearly all social programs. Just because the guy is telling you that you can get free money doesn't mean you will actually get "free" money. I suppose you think that the diet pills actually work well?
The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork.
Social programs are worthless crap now?
Not all of them! Many of them are, see that one guy with the stupid question mark suit with the book on how to get free money from the government. Congressmen should buy that book and use it as a tool to close up loose spending.
You have to qualify for nearly all social programs. Just because the guy is telling you that you can get free money doesn't mean you will actually get "free" money. I suppose you think that the diet pills actually work well?
That was a half joke/example. Do you think if I was in Congress I would really dictate my pork spending by his literature? They need to stop raping the Commerce Clause and let the states handle most of those excess social programs.
Did you just say that the decline of taxes on the rich to the same rates as the middleclass would result in a 10 billion dollar shortfall, which would be made up by not having to operate the IRS imbalanced?
It definitely wouldn't, in which case my fiscal conservatism would show its face. The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork. I'm all for the line item veto, even if it's for the next president down the line, regardless of political party.
Um.
In 2005, the year of the worst budgetary abuse, pork still only made up 2% of the federal budget.
Did you just say that the decline of taxes on the rich to the same rates as the middleclass would result in a 10 billion dollar shortfall, which would be made up by not having to operate the IRS imbalanced?
It definitely wouldn't, in which case my fiscal conservatism would show its face. The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork. I'm all for the line item veto, even if it's for the next president down the line, regardless of political party.
Um.
In 2005, the year of the worst budgetary abuse, pork still only made up 2% of the federal budget.
Out of the $818.4 billion federal budget in 2005, defense used $401.7 billion, health and human services used $68.2 billion, education took $57.3 billion, housing and urban development used $31.3 billion, veteran affairs used $29.7 billion, and homeland security used $28.3 billion. Agriculture, energy, transportation, justice, and commerce were all below those categories. I don't know about you, but cutting any of those top categories is political suicide.
The easy reason pork wasn't but 2 percent is because defense was so high for the wars overseas. That's not a normal cost we usually bare, and that will go away eventually. So yeah, fix ear marks. Work on the other stuff after that.
EDIT: According to my math (which is dependent on a US population ticker and the 2005 budget, not very precise), each person in the US would have to owe around $2,700 in taxes annually to make up the difference -- if we were all giving the same amount of money. I know I'm paying more than that a year already, so who knows how much we could realistically cut down spending. I've seen the book of disbursements for Congress, and we aren't bleeding money on staffers there by any means.
If we just change to a national sales tax, it gets rid of all incentive for anyone to cheat on their taxes, ever, so we'd no longer need an enforcement agency for tax laws.
Thanatos on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
The easy reason pork wasn't but 2 percent is because defense was so high for the wars overseas. That's not a normal cost we usually bare, and that will go away eventually. So yeah, fix ear marks. Work on the other stuff after that.
Defense spending prior to the war was still around $300B-350B or so. It's not like that cost just vanishes when the troops come home.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The easy reason pork wasn't but 2 percent is because defense was so high for the wars overseas. That's not a normal cost we usually bare, and that will go away eventually. So yeah, fix ear marks. Work on the other stuff after that.
Defense spending prior to the war was still around $300B-350B or so. It's not like that cost just vanishes when the troops come home.
True. It is by far the largest expenditure in the budget. It actually surprised me that the VA is so high up. We should probably consolidate our assets in defense and rethink our spending strategy. If you can't get body armor and plated Humvees with that kind of budget, I don't know what you're doing wrong. Maybe suck some of the funds from defense and move them over to Homeland Security, then crop off a lot of fat from defense.
EDIT: It looks like our defense budget went up dramatically since 9/11. I would say at least $40-60 billion in extra defense spending since then (before we hit the $350b mark).
Maybe suck some of the funds from defense and move them over to Homeland Security, then crop off a lot of fat from defense.
I don't see how adding funds to another part of the bureaucracy known for overspending will help. The Department of Homeland security was responsible for a lot of the fuck ups after Katrina.
Couscous on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited July 2007
The DoHS is an abomination and should be taken out back and shot. Alas, cabinet positions never die.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If we just change to a national sales tax, it gets rid of all incentive for anyone to cheat on their taxes, ever, so we'd no longer need an enforcement agency for tax laws.
The DoHS is an abomination and should be taken out back and shot. Alas, cabinet positions never die.
Except for when they die so another position that is exactly the same except with a nicer name like the Secretary of Defense instead of the Secretary of War.
If we just change to a national sales tax, it gets rid of all incentive for anyone to cheat on their taxes, ever, so we'd no longer need an enforcement agency for tax laws.
If we just change to a national sales tax, it gets rid of all incentive for anyone to cheat on their taxes, ever, so we'd no longer need an enforcement agency for tax laws.
No problems with it being unprogressive?
There's a debate to be had over it being regressive, and whether or not that's a good thing.
No real debate as to the above, other than to what degree, precisely, it's retarded. Somewhere between a 5-8 on a 10-point "retarded" scale, where 1 is "y'know, that Bush guy might not be so bad," and 10 is "if we'd just abolish all government, the free market would take care of everything!"
The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork.
Social programs are worthless crap now?
Not all of them! Many of them are, see that one guy with the stupid question mark suit with the book on how to get free money from the government. Congressmen should buy that book and use it as a tool to close up loose spending.
That guy is trying to sell people a book. It should hardly be necessary to point out to anyone over the age of 4 that his infomercial is in no way a credible and impartial analysis of government spending patterns.
The easy reason pork wasn't but 2 percent is because defense was so high for the wars overseas.
Wait a minute. Aren't they not including war funding in spending bills? Does someone want to back me up, or did I just make this up?
I'm not too sure. Everything this current session has spent on the military have been supplemental funding and such. I forget if it was supplementing a specific budget just for the DOD or a more blanket budgetary omnibus thing.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups in society who spend a large proportion of their income.
Guess which groups those might be.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups that spend the largest dollar amounts. It has nothing to do with proportions. A person who spends $39,000 of their $40,000 per year pays less than someone who spends $500,000 of their $1.5M per year.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups in society who spend a large proportion of their income.
Guess which groups those might be.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups that spend the largest dollar amounts. It has nothing to do with proportions. A person who spends $39,000 of their $40,000 per year pays less than someone who spends $500,000 of their $1.5M per year.
And the burden would hurt the lower and middle classes the most because the upper class generally doesn't spend all of their money while the lower and middle classes often do. The income tax is less of a burden on the middle class than a "fairtax" would be. Because of a lack of tax on businesses, the large business owners would benefit and have to pay less overall than the much larger middle class.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups in society who spend a large proportion of their income.
Guess which groups those might be.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups that spend the largest dollar amounts. It has nothing to do with proportions. A person who spends $39,000 of their $40,000 per year pays less than someone who spends $500,000 of their $1.5M per year.
Math really kicked your ass in school, didn't it? Yes, person A pays less than person B. But the cost of a sales tax weighs heavier on person A.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups that spend the largest dollar amounts. It has nothing to do with proportions. A person who spends $39,000 of their $40,000 per year pays less than someone who spends $500,000 of their $1.5M per year.
But the person paying 39K has much more of a burden because that represents 97.5% of their income.
EDIT: I'd also wager that the person paying the 500k would pay a lot more than he would in the current progressive tax system, and his burden would therefore be lessened.
Also, the top ten percent of people consist of a lot few people than the middle class. 39,000 times a hundred or so million can still be less than 500,000 times a bit of people. The burden will be passed from the upper class down the the middle class under something like the Fairtax.
Posts
A high school degree hardly opens any doors these days. Particularly since the actual education gleaned from high school is widely variable thanks in large part due to the means in which public schools are funded. If you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps to climb out of a richer person's vagina and are surrounded by real estate that has a relatively good value, your school is likely going to be well funded and offer a large swath of potential opportunities. If it's a cold and gray Chicago morning and you're the latest little baby boy that's born in the ghetto (in the ghetto) then odds are you're not going to have anywhere near the same opportunities in your education. Even though that is the great equalizer in our aspirationally meritocratic society.
Or you could institute the fair tax and then abolish the $10.7 billion operating budget of the IRS. That would more than make up for the difference.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Yes, I'm sure there won't be any issues with collecting money at all if we use the honor system.
You don't know what the fair tax is then. I didn't say flat tax. The fair tax gets rid of income tax, therefore removing the need for the IRS. Duh.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I'm sure that no company will claim that the products it sales aren't actually final products even though they are.
Oh I got it. Men In Black! Oh wait, that's taken? Shit.
Anyway, it's just a national sales tax. And all these conspiracy theories I hear haven't happened on a state level, where sales taxes are in ample supply. You don't wanna pay tax on food? Grow a garden. The Vegans will thank you.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
It does, but what we're talking about is replacing that revenue with a different form of revenue, one which can be individually controlled on a consumer level. The number you should be concerned with in that matter would be the difference between the income raised by a sales tax in comparison to the income raised by income tax. Depending on the percentage, it can be made equal.
EDIT: Oh and anyone below the poverty line gets a rebate apparently, so they pay no sales tax.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Sure, but is there any reason to believe that it would be anywhere near equal? The very wealthy (whom contributed most of the income tax revenue) would likely funnel that extra cash into investments. I'm not too sure on the economics of it, but would that money eventually find its way into a consumer exchange?
Did you just say that the decline of taxes on the rich to the same rates as the middleclass would result in a 10 billion dollar shortfall, which would be made up by not having to operate the IRS imbalanced?
Probably. I think they were saying the rate would be around 23% which sounds like a lot until you realize you're not getting taxed at ALL on your income -- unless your state has specific income tax rules. I found a PDF which compares the flat tax and fair tax, but I don't know how reliable its data is since the first fair tax bill was in 2001. I don't think anyone has moved on the issue since then.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
It definitely wouldn't, in which case my fiscal conservatism would show its face. The federal government should stop spending so much money on worthless crap. Earmarks, over-funded social programs, pork pork pork. I'm all for the line item veto, even if it's for the next president down the line, regardless of political party.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Not all of them! Many of them are, see that one guy with the stupid question mark suit with the book on how to get free money from the government. Congressmen should buy that book and use it as a tool to close up loose spending. To be honest, the best way to start cutting pork barrel spending is to make sure current pork can't proceed. If you fix the leak, then you can work on the main issue.
I think of it like immigration. If you don't fix the borders, you can't really kick out all illegal immigrants and think the problem is going to go away. So yeah, the first step is the line item veto and for Congress not to even try introducing those earmarks.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
That was a half joke/example. Do you think if I was in Congress I would really dictate my pork spending by his literature? They need to stop raping the Commerce Clause and let the states handle most of those excess social programs.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Um.
In 2005, the year of the worst budgetary abuse, pork still only made up 2% of the federal budget.
Out of the $818.4 billion federal budget in 2005, defense used $401.7 billion, health and human services used $68.2 billion, education took $57.3 billion, housing and urban development used $31.3 billion, veteran affairs used $29.7 billion, and homeland security used $28.3 billion. Agriculture, energy, transportation, justice, and commerce were all below those categories. I don't know about you, but cutting any of those top categories is political suicide.
The easy reason pork wasn't but 2 percent is because defense was so high for the wars overseas. That's not a normal cost we usually bare, and that will go away eventually. So yeah, fix ear marks. Work on the other stuff after that.
EDIT: According to my math (which is dependent on a US population ticker and the 2005 budget, not very precise), each person in the US would have to owe around $2,700 in taxes annually to make up the difference -- if we were all giving the same amount of money. I know I'm paying more than that a year already, so who knows how much we could realistically cut down spending. I've seen the book of disbursements for Congress, and we aren't bleeding money on staffers there by any means.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
If we just change to a national sales tax, it gets rid of all incentive for anyone to cheat on their taxes, ever, so we'd no longer need an enforcement agency for tax laws.
Defense spending prior to the war was still around $300B-350B or so. It's not like that cost just vanishes when the troops come home.
True. It is by far the largest expenditure in the budget. It actually surprised me that the VA is so high up. We should probably consolidate our assets in defense and rethink our spending strategy. If you can't get body armor and plated Humvees with that kind of budget, I don't know what you're doing wrong. Maybe suck some of the funds from defense and move them over to Homeland Security, then crop off a lot of fat from defense.
EDIT: It looks like our defense budget went up dramatically since 9/11. I would say at least $40-60 billion in extra defense spending since then (before we hit the $350b mark).
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
No problems with it being unprogressive?
Except for when they die so another position that is exactly the same except with a nicer name like the Secretary of Defense instead of the Secretary of War.
I do hope you're being sarcastic.
No real debate as to the above, other than to what degree, precisely, it's retarded. Somewhere between a 5-8 on a 10-point "retarded" scale, where 1 is "y'know, that Bush guy might not be so bad," and 10 is "if we'd just abolish all government, the free market would take care of everything!"
That guy is trying to sell people a book. It should hardly be necessary to point out to anyone over the age of 4 that his infomercial is in no way a credible and impartial analysis of government spending patterns.
Wait a minute. Aren't they not including war funding in spending bills? Does someone want to back me up, or did I just make this up?
Guess which groups those might be.
I'm not too sure. Everything this current session has spent on the military have been supplemental funding and such. I forget if it was supplementing a specific budget just for the DOD or a more blanket budgetary omnibus thing.
A sales tax is a way of shifting the burden of taxation onto those groups that spend the largest dollar amounts. It has nothing to do with proportions. A person who spends $39,000 of their $40,000 per year pays less than someone who spends $500,000 of their $1.5M per year.
And the burden would hurt the lower and middle classes the most because the upper class generally doesn't spend all of their money while the lower and middle classes often do. The income tax is less of a burden on the middle class than a "fairtax" would be. Because of a lack of tax on businesses, the large business owners would benefit and have to pay less overall than the much larger middle class.
Math really kicked your ass in school, didn't it? Yes, person A pays less than person B. But the cost of a sales tax weighs heavier on person A.
But the person paying 39K has much more of a burden because that represents 97.5% of their income.
EDIT: I'd also wager that the person paying the 500k would pay a lot more than he would in the current progressive tax system, and his burden would therefore be lessened.