In the "no one should ever have to sacrifice" world of instant gratification, no good deed goes long unpunished. The ink from the governor's signature on the tax reform bill had barely dried before the TV news crews were out interviewing the law's "victims."

"How does it feel, Mr. and Mrs. Connecticut, to pay 5 percent more for your round of mini-golf?" "How does it feel, Mr. Amusement Park Operator, to have to charge 5 percent more for your ride?"

Unless they had replied, "Great. Why not 6 percent?" their answers could hardly have been surprising or newsworthy.

Of course they were upset. Who wouldn't be? No one would be in favor of extending a tax to himself that he has not previously paid. The more interesting question would have been, "How do you feel about having gotten a free ride for generations from the auto dealer and hardware store and T-shirt shop down the street?"

In recent years, the state of Maine has collected between $75 million and $80 million in sales tax revenues each year from businesses operating in Old Orchard Beach – not all businesses, mind you, just those selling stuff we now deem taxable. Just over 5 percent of these funds along with an equivalent share of income tax revenues go into a pot that is divvied up by a complex formula based on population and property value and returned to the state's municipalities.

For 2010, the state treasurer estimates that this revenue sharing will amount to approximately $665,000 for the town of Old Orchard Beach. This is money that helps pay for fire and police protection, roads and schools and keeps property taxes lower than they would otherwise be. And not a penny of this money comes from sales at amusement parks. But it does come from the sales of cars and screwdrivers and T-shirts.

Is this fair? Of course not. Nor is it fair that not a penny comes from sales (at grocery stores) of hot dogs or ground beef or bread, or from the sale of services by lawyers, consultants or doctors.

Many readers of this column excoriated me this past week for claiming that the recently enacted tax reform was fair. It is, they all but shouted, a display not of what is fair but of who has the strongest lobby. The Legislature was not the blindfolded justice measuring what is equitable, but the prowling hyena picking off the weakest of the flock.

Are my critics correct? Of course they're correct. Cutting income taxes helps those with higher incomes more than those with lower incomes. Extending the sales tax hits those who buy the newly taxed services regardless of income.

Indeed, many use this "stick it to the tourists" mentality as their primary rationale for supporting the reform. Is this fair? Of course not.

Other readers criticized me for calling the legislation tax reform. This doesn't limit spending, they argued. It doesn't relieve our tax burden.

Are they correct? Of course they are. This bill was designed to be revenue neutral, to keep the amount of money collected the same while simply changing the pockets it comes from.

So why do I still support this deeply flawed, highly inequitable, extremely complex and, in many ways, deceptive bill?

Because, for all its flaws, it represents a first small step to move our tax system closer to the fundamental reality of our economy, an economy in which physical "stuff" is less important, and activity – service – is increasingly important.

Is the current group of services that will be taxed the correct group? Clearly not. They are, in a political sense, the weakest of the flock. But if we are going to move in this direction, we have to start somewhere.

I have long argued that we should tax food and all services – health care, lawyers, movies, repairs, everything – and then lower the tax rate substantially. I am always laughed out of the room as politically naive.

Now – while not openly admitting the...