Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 98
Thanks Tree32Thanks

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

  1. #21
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,301
    Thanks
    7888

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    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!
    Nope. Lower and middle incomes get more money thru the prebate to offset the tax burden. Raise it as high as needed as long as everyone takes home their entire paycheck. Nothing inconsistent about my remark. You don’t agree with it and have to use technobabble as a counter argument.

    Dismissed

  2. #22
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,301
    Thanks
    7888

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    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.
    I agree, that’s exactly why the prebate has to be raised higher. That’s to help those lower incomes pay for those necessities(food/clothing/shelter). Raise the prebate amount as high as everyone agrees adequate. The goal is to get maximum take home pay first and foremost. Let the government get its cut thru consumption.

  3. #23
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    9,544
    Thanks
    6992

    From
    ----> X <----
    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.
    So you have to sit on your money to avoid taxes. And now the government has lost revenue because people avoid spending to avoid taxes. Now they are going to have to make up that shortfall somewhere else. Hmm...good excuse to institute a new tax somewhere.
    Thanks from Babba and labrea

  4. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,986
    Thanks
    4006

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    Nope. Lower and middle incomes get more money thru the prebate to offset the tax burden. Raise it as high as needed as long as everyone takes home their entire paycheck. Nothing inconsistent about my remark. You don’t agree with it and have to use technobabble as a counter argument.
    I don't think there is any practical way, even with prebates, to make a consumption tax not-regressive when considered relative to our current income tax structure, unless if the rates escalated according to some determination of luxury qualities. Certain theorists sometimes advocate for this kind of thing, but it tends not to satisfy liberals because nothing prevents someone like Jeff Bezos from living in a 2-bedroom ranch, driving a Corolla and shopping at Old Navy while accumulating his billions. The mere right of anyone to possess billions is intolerable to leftists, no matter how everyone else is doing.

    So they are always going to advocate a tax structure that confiscates the most, whereas the success of a luxury (over-consumption) tax would be measured by how little it brings in, because it would indicate greater consumption equality.

    I always find it funny though, that those who squeal for the need to establish progressive taxation are often some of the fiercest opponents of welfarizing Social Security and Medicare, which are (partially) funded by a flat tax on income. To leftists, regressive taxation is just fine, as long as it's to pay unfunded pension liabilities.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 19th October 2017 at 03:23 PM.

  5. #25
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,301
    Thanks
    7888

    From
    New York

    Sales taxes are not more regressive than income taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    So you have to sit on your money to avoid taxes. And now the government has lost revenue because people avoid spending to avoid taxes. Now they are going to have to make up that shortfall somewhere else. Hmm...good excuse to institute a new tax somewhere.
    The government still collects its revenue because everyone at one point or another has to buy goods and services. Its not that they avoid spending(granted they could to a degree), it’s just a different order of taxation. People with more take home pay may save more money but it’s also a reasonable surmise that they will be offset by those who spend more because they have more. Is it the perfect solution, of course not, but our current system isn’t cutting it either.

  6. #26
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    Nope. Lower and middle incomes get more money thru the prebate to offset the tax burden. Raise it as high as needed as long as everyone takes home their entire paycheck. Nothing inconsistent about my remark. You don’t agree with it and have to use technobabble as a counter argument.

    Dismissed
    Dismissed? Try not to come out with stupidity. You cannot ignore academic analysis into regressivity and then type that is can benefit the lower and middle incomes. That demonstrates complete ignorance. Nothing more

  7. #27
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,301
    Thanks
    7888

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Dismissed? Try not to come out with stupidity. You cannot ignore academic analysis into regressivity and then type that is can benefit the lower and middle incomes. That demonstrates complete ignorance. Nothing more
    If you cannot see that prebates (as high as needed) will help offset the tax burden(by giving them more money up front)set by the national retail sales tax, than there’s nothing more to say here. Calling it stupid and claiming it demonstrates ignorance means you have no way of proving me wrong. You refuse to hear it because you choose not to. This conversation is finished.

  8. #28
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    If you cannot see that prebates (as high as needed) will help offset the tax burden(by giving them more money up front)set by the national retail sales tax, than there’s nothing more to say here. Calling it stupid and claiming it demonstrates ignorance means you have no way of proving me wrong. You refuse to hear it because you choose not to. This conversation is finished.
    No way of proving you wrong? I've referred to published evidence that refers to regressivity: i.e. it necessarily harms lower and middle incomes. You seem to think that, if some don't effectively pay tax, all's well. That is bollocks

  9. #29
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    460
    Thanks
    50

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Seems like you want it both ways. If it is only regressive for the people who don't currently make enough to owe income tax, isn't that by definition more regressive? It's like saying "it's only regressive if you are poor".
    StanStill, yes you're correct, it's like saying "it's only regressive if you are poor".
    But the majority of the poor are Social Security beneficiaries, or the working-poor, or their dependents.

    Social Security beneficiaries are shielded by cost-of-living-adjustments. The majority of the remaining poor are employees and their dependents that are are statistically entirely dependent upon wages subject to FICA taxes.
    Referring to this thread's first post, “FICA and SECA taxes levied only upon the wage portions of individuals' incomes are the most severe federal taxes impacting the working-poor and their dependents. I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax”.

    Refer to post #8 of :
    The FICA payroll tax is the most regressive federal tax

    Respectfully, Supposn

  10. #30
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,066
    Thanks
    48074

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    So you have to sit on your money to avoid taxes. And now the government has lost revenue because people avoid spending to avoid taxes. Now they are going to have to make up that shortfall somewhere else. Hmm...good excuse to institute a new tax somewhere.
    Not only would a national sales tax be regressive, no matter what the prebate is, and not only would it reduce tax revenues when we already have a debt and a deficit that is too high, but it would stifle economic activity. It would be a disaster all the way around.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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