Complex systems are even easier to "game" and the wealthy ALWAYS leverage the government for breaks and advantages in such byzantine systems. The current "progressive" system is riddled with wealth-preservation exceptions, in part because it is so complex that virtually no one can read and understand the entire tax code unless it is their full time job.
As to "regressive" taxation, the point about the prebate is to create a scenario where the truly "strapped" or indigent are not paying tax on basic subsistence items and may be, in some instances, being prebated more than they pay in taxes. If there is any "regressive" component, it would be on those above the poverty line and below the median income. Even though their overall taxes might decrease, they would still experience those taxes as a somewhat higher percentage of wealth than would those immediately above or below them. As usual, the middle class would find little actual change in their tax burden. By tapping into the purchases of the upper middle and upper classes, it is likely that we would see a small increase in their revenue contribution -- with no way for their accountants to hide it.
BTW, I philosophically disagree with you. To me, government is not about redressing inequity, but providing certain needed services that cannot be provided by the individual. Since all benefit from such services equally, it has always seemed inappropriate to me that high income earners have to pay more for the same services.
Bookmarks