Yes, that was very much my point, and thank you for making it clearer than I did. I confess to having attempted to couch the term (in single quotes) in order to lessen its potential to trigger reactionary righteousness.
By "socially backwards" I meant to allude to a reversal of social evolution. If you start with the premise that we evolve as a society (and as individuals, cells in our grand aggregate organism), then you might see an increased tax burden on the poor as moving backwards, de-evolving, regressing.
I apologise for obscuring my meaning, stepping so lightly through (what I perceive to be) the minefield of HN's perpetual potential political polarization (and for here, now, my abuse of alliteration) that I danced over the point I was trying to make.
A blanket tariff policy is effectively a national sales tax which is regressive (and bad, taxation without representation is bad, bass ackwards orange man bad).
By "socially backwards" I meant to allude to a reversal of social evolution. If you start with the premise that we evolve as a society (and as individuals, cells in our grand aggregate organism), then you might see an increased tax burden on the poor as moving backwards, de-evolving, regressing.
I apologise for obscuring my meaning, stepping so lightly through (what I perceive to be) the minefield of HN's perpetual potential political polarization (and for here, now, my abuse of alliteration) that I danced over the point I was trying to make.
A blanket tariff policy is effectively a national sales tax which is regressive (and bad, taxation without representation is bad, bass ackwards orange man bad).