Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 98
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Sales taxes are not more regressive than income taxes.

  1. #11
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    NightSwimmer and Æthelfrith, I don't claim to be able to “prove” this contention to your satisfaction. But can you guys can't even devise a logical argument to respond the contention?
    This proposal would to some extent decrease, but certainly not remedy USA goods' trade deficits' detriments to our economy.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Your whole argument is based on talking bollocks. Trade imbalances reflect saving rates. When informed of that you just repeat the same guff and throw in words like 'regressive' as though you understand them. You don't. Sales taxes are regressive. Efforts are simply made to reduce the severity of that regressivity. They typically fail.
    Thanks from One

  2. #12
    One
    One is online now
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    7727

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/stock/stktridx.htm
    The stock transfer tax is imposed on the sale or transfer of any of the following that occur within New York State:
    stock
    agreements to sell stock
    memoranda of sales of stock
    certificates of stock
    certificates of rights to stock*
    certificates of interest in property or accumulations*
    certificates of deposit
    certificates of interest in business conducted by trustees

    Selling price/ Rate (cents per share)
    Sale or agreement to sell at less than $5 per share / 1 ¼ ¢
    Sale at $5 or more but less than $10 per share / 2 ½ ¢
    Sale at $10 or more but less than $20 per share / 3 ¾ ¢
    Sale at $20 or more per share / 5 ¢
    Transfers of stock or certificates of interest other than by sale / 2 ½ ¢

    OldGaffer, if the U.S. Congress passed a document transfer and registration act that would be similar to NY state's, (an annoyance that wouldn't overly upset the financial community, that would be of tiny consequence with regard to the costs of Medicare and Social Security retirement. But it would have to pass through the U.S. Congress that depends upon campaign contributions.

    If the tax became more than an annoyance, all large scale transactions would be performed by brokers and bankers beyond USA's borders.
    Remember the stamp act was exactly what we're describing. The Stamp Act induced a few wealthy Colonialists, (that were small-time in comparison the the much wealthier English nobility), to initiate a revolution and divorce America from the British Empire.
    Beware of upsetting the wealthy. When you draw your sword against the Emperor, its best to kill him.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Which leaves the tax burden on those who don't have the means to oppose it. So, yes, very repressive.
    Here in Oregon, we have no sales tax, so when I was working, when I got my paycheck, I knew then how much I had to live on.
    Thanks from Æthelfrith

  3. #13
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York
    The national sales tax (Fair Tax) could work if applied correctly. The prebate would need to be tweaked and increased for the lower and middle incomes to benefit.

  4. #14
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    The national sales tax (Fair Tax) could work if applied correctly. The prebate would need to be tweaked and increased for the lower and middle incomes to benefit.
    Drivel! Evidence shows that it is regressive. Indeed, I've already given you an example of the evidence via Kuang et al. (2011, A Distributional Analysis of the FairTax Plan: Annual and Lifetime Income Considerations, Southern Economic Journal):

    "Dissatisfaction with the current federal tax system is fostering serious interest in the FairTax Plan, which would replace most of the federal taxes with a national retail sales tax. The FairTax is promoted as being progressive, but there is considerable skepticism of this claim. We examine the distributional effects of the FairTax, as well as the current system it intends to replace, under both annual income and lifetime income approaches. Global measures of progressivity suggest that the current federal tax system is progressive while the FairTax is regressive. Our results are also robust to different assumptions used for estimation"
    Thanks from labrea

  5. #15
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Drivel! Evidence shows that it is regressive. Indeed, I've already given you an example of the evidence via Kuang et al. (2011, A Distributional Analysis of the FairTax Plan: Annual and Lifetime Income Considerations, Southern Economic Journal):

    "Dissatisfaction with the current federal tax system is fostering serious interest in the FairTax Plan, which would replace most of the federal taxes with a national retail sales tax. The FairTax is promoted as being progressive, but there is considerable skepticism of this claim. We examine the distributional effects of the FairTax, as well as the current system it intends to replace, under both annual income and lifetime income approaches. Global measures of progressivity suggest that the current federal tax system is progressive while the FairTax is regressive. Our results are also robust to different assumptions used for estimation"
    Bullshit. If the lower incomes had higher prebates it means MORE money for them. It lowers the burden of the consumption tax. Whether it’s labeled regressive or not is irrelevant. IT MEANS ALL PEOPLE TAKE HOME THEIR ENTIRE PAYCHECKS!!!!

  6. #16
    One
    One is online now
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    7727

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    Bullshit. If the lower incomes had higher prebates it means MORE money for them. It lowers the burden of the consumption tax. Whether it’s labeled regressive or not is irrelevant. IT MEANS ALL PEOPLE TAKE HOME THEIR ENTIRE PAYCHECKS!!!!
    How does that help? You still have to pay taxes out of what you bring home. It just means more of your free money will be devoted to taxes. Don't fall for this scheme that ultimately only benefits those of higher income.
    Thanks from labrea

  7. #17
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York

    Sales taxes are not more regressive than income taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    How does that help? You still have to pay taxes out of what you bring home. It just means more of your free money will be devoted to taxes. Don't fall for this scheme that ultimately only benefits those of higher income.
    I can explain how I would benefit as an example: Because I the worker get the first cut before the government does. My consumption to an extent determines my tax burden. If I save the money I do not get taxed nor if I invest it. The taxes do not get taken out till a good or service is purchased.
    Last edited by Jets; 19th October 2017 at 02:24 PM.

  8. #18
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Here is a list of all 50 states and the percentage of income taxed by quintile, if you look over the states, you will see that the states with no income tax are much more regressive than the ones that have a progressive income tax, for example my state of Tennessee taxes the poorest 20% at 10.9% of income and the top 1% at 3% of income. And we are not the worst, that would be South Dakota at 11.3% and 1.8%, or Washington at 16.8% and 2.4%

    https://itep.org/whopays/#The 10 Most Regressive State & Local Tax Systems
    Thanks from labrea

  9. #19
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    Bullshit. If the lower incomes had higher prebates it means MORE money for them. It lowers the burden of the consumption tax. Whether it’s labeled regressive or not is irrelevant. IT MEANS ALL PEOPLE TAKE HOME THEIR ENTIRE PAYCHECKS!!!!
    What a strong reply. Chortle chortle.

    I reference an academic piece that shows how fairtax is inherently regressive. You reply by stamping your foot (and making completely inconsistent comment to the 'for the lower and middle incomes to benefit). Tantrums don't work sonny-jim!
    Last edited by Æthelfrith; 19th October 2017 at 02:32 PM.

  10. #20
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    I can explain how I would benefit as an example: Because I the worker get the first cut before the government does. My consumption to an extent determines my tax burden. If I save the money I do not get taxed nor if I invest it. The taxes do not get taken out till a good or service is purchased.
    But the poorer you are the bigger percentage of your income must be spent to provide food, shelter and clothing, approaching 100%, whereas Buffet only needs to subject less than 1% of his income to sales taxes, the other 99.9% would remain as saving or investment and tax free, exacerbating income inequality to the French and Russian Revolution levels. Unless you favor a hereditary aristocracy unlike the Founders who thought it was a great evil.
    Thanks from Babba and labrea

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 31st March 2015, 01:36 AM
  2. Governors attempting to get rid of state income taxes
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22nd January 2013, 01:07 PM
  3. Romney Says He Paid at Least 13% in Income Taxes
    By MGunner in forum Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 10:50 AM
  4. Bachmann: no corporate income taxes, that's the solution
    By bonncaruso in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 7th September 2011, 01:12 PM
  5. are income taxes legal? let's review.....
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28th September 2008, 10:15 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed