Does that include retirees who have already paid 100% of their taxes and now get to pay 100% of their taxes again?
Yes, it does. Curiously, you fail to recognize the windfalls they receive and only see the reductions they see. Why's that?
Can you fabricate a situation in which the overall purchasing power of an individual (legally particpating in the income/payroll tax system) reduces? I'm even willing to use the maximum possible nrst rate. Go for it.
If your position is that purchasing power is secondary to the $ amount of tax paid, you're misguided.
Which would you pick?
$100,000 and $25,000 in taxes
or
$150,000 and $50,000 in taxes?
Seems pretty obvious that YOU would pick the first option since it pays less tax!
The first option keeps $75,000 (according to what you've said, you'd pick this option).
The second option keeps $100,000.
Even though the second option has increased purchasing power, you choose the first option. Why's that?
If you want to examine one component of the nrst, why pick this one? Why not pick the component that gives seniors, retirees, and savers a major windfall on the amount of pre-tax savings thy have? What's the breakdown of money in pre-tax vs post tax savings instruments? Do you know?