From Roger Miller, economist
Quote:
|
Under a proportional system of taxation, taxpayers at all income levels end up paying the same PERCENTAGE of their incomes in taxes. If the proportional tax rate were 20%, an individual with an income of $10,000 wouold pay $2,000 in taxes, while an individual making $100,000 would pay $20,000. The identical 20% rate, therefore, is levied on both taxpayers
|
granted, this definition refers to a Flat Tax, not an NST. However, if we read further down:
Quote:
|
So far, all congressional proposals (refering to alternative tax ideas) have called for exempting household incomes from taxation up to some minimal threshold (often the official "poverty line" for U.S. economies). In these proposals, only incomes above such a minimum threshold would be subjected to taxation at a single rate, thereby making sure that the proposed flat tax systems would, like the current system, be progressive.
|
The social security tax is an example of a regressive tax, because it is capped at, I believe, somewhere around $80,000 of income. After earning $80,000-something, you pay no more. That is a regressive tax, this one isn't. A consumption tax doesn't neatly fit into either category, but it most closely resembles a progressive tax as there is no cap, and the more you earn, the more you pay.