Reply #255: it is a classic example [View All]

[William Z. Foster]

Regressive taxation is defined and explained in several places on the thread. This is in fact a regressive tax, and one of the worst kinds of regressive tax. Merely saying "no it's not!" is no logical or persuasive rebuttal.

If you want to argue that regressive taxes are OK under certain circumstances, where public health and safety demand it, that is fine. That is a legitimate argument that has merit and that I respect. I am sympathetic with that view, but I am questioning whether the potential for social good does in fact outweigh the potential for social harm in this case. If you want to argue that regressive taxes are good, that is also fine - do so honestly and openly. I disagree with that point of view, but it is also a legitimate position and I would welcome a serious debate on that topic, and no serious debate on that topic has happened on this thread, although it is the topic of the thread.

But saying that this is not a regressive tax is simply false and unsupportable.