U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-25-2017, 10:20 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
There is no such thing as more progressive or regressive. It really is either progressive or it's not. You can't be a little pregnant
LowExpectations, You’re correct to believe that a woman cannot be “more” or “less” pregnant; but she can have “recently become pregnant” or “further along her pregnancy”.

I contend a tax can be more or be less progressive or regressive when compared to another tax.
Certainly, the comparisons can be based upon the tax rate relative to the taxpayers’ incomes, or wealth, or their budget restrictions, (i.e. their ability to afford paying the rate).

My English language Guru has not yet responded to this question and some other more personal financial questions. I too am interested in his opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2017, 10:36 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85 View Post
Something that's interesting to note though is the idea of progressive income taxation is to limit wealth inequality but it has actually had the opposite effect. Take a look at neighboring states Utah and California. Utah has what you would consider a regressive tax policy, they have a flat tax. California has a very progressive income tax. Utah has best wealth equality in the country and California has some of the most wealth inequality. CT is another example, very progressive income tax, extreme inequality. Infact the top 10 states for wealth equality are almost all made up of states with a flat tax or no tax and most of the bottom 10 have progressive tax policies. Of course there are other factors at play but it is noteworthy.
CtTransplant, interesting observation.
But if there’s correlation between income disparity and the states taxing policy, which is cause or effect?
Possibly the two factors are mutually exclusive, (there is no actual cause or effect relationship between the two factors)?

Could the state's politicians have chosen a progressive tax system because such income disparity is so clearly perceived by the voters?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2017, 11:03 PM
 
5,237 posts, read 2,386,359 times
Reputation: 5119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
LowExpectations, You’re correct to believe that a woman cannot be “more” or “less” pregnant; but she can have “recently become pregnant” or “further along her pregnancy”.
Agreed. However, the basic threshold of "actually pregnant" must first be surpassed before a discussion about how far along she is can actually take place. If she in fact ISN'T pregnant, a discussion about how far along she is is meaningless.

Quote:
I contend a tax can be more or be less progressive or regressive when compared to another tax.
Certainly, the comparisons can be based upon the tax rate relative to the taxpayers’ incomes, or wealth, or their budget restrictions, (i.e. their ability to afford paying the rate).
As discussed above, this has meaning only if the tax in question is actually regressive. There is a well established definition of "regressive rax." If a tax doesn't meet this definition, it isn't regressive, and a discussion of how it is "regressive" compared to other taxes is meaningless.

I anxiously await your "Guru's" ruling on whether a statement that a tax that is is both "regressive" and "not regressive" is either consistent or inconsistent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2017, 04:39 AM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Agreed. However, the basic threshold of "actually pregnant" must first be surpassed before a discussion about how far along she is can actually take place. If she in fact ISN'T pregnant, a discussion about how far along she is is meaningless.



As discussed above, this has meaning only if the tax in question is actually regressive. There is a well established definition of "regressive rax." If a tax doesn't meet this definition, it isn't regressive, and a discussion of how it is "regressive" compared to other taxes is meaningless.

I anxiously await your "Guru's" ruling on whether a statement that a tax that is is both "regressive" and "not regressive" is either consistent or inconsistent.
Regressive or progressive as comparative adjectives:
TaxPhd, regressive or progressive by what criteria? A light color can be darker than other light colors.
A flat or regressive tax can be more or less progressive than some other tax.

The flat rate FICA payroll tax behaves as a regressive tax: Employees’ total annual taxes are “capped”; Its affordability is of lesser consequences to higher income earners; It’s not levied on individuals’ incomes not derived from employment.

The proposed flat sales tax rate that’s to replace the reduced FICA revenues will be levied upon all individual purchasers.
If an employees’ entire wages were spent upon items subject to the sales tax, their individual total annual sales taxes could not exceed their reduction of FICA taxes.
[The proposed sales tax would not be applicable to food not sold by restaurants or caterers, and to capped amounts of residences’ rents and each of specified utilities. Cap amounts will be annually cost-of-living adjusted].

Thus, the proposed drafting of the flat rated sales tax would be slightly more progressive. It is more progressive than the portions of FICA payroll taxes it is replacing.

Alternatively, if the U.S. Congress could pass a bill replacing reduced FICA revenues with an increase of our progressive income tax rates, we cannot expect the consequences to be significantly more progressive than the proposed sales tax.

Last edited by Supposn; 08-26-2017 at 05:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2017, 09:30 AM
 
17,637 posts, read 12,239,811 times
Reputation: 12870
If a tax is not regressive it can not be more or less regressive than another tax. This continuation is silly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2017, 11:11 AM
 
5,237 posts, read 2,386,359 times
Reputation: 5119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Regressive or progressive as comparative adjectives:
TaxPhd, regressive or progressive by what criteria? A light color can be darker than other light colors.
A flat or regressive tax can be more or less progressive than some other tax.

<<SNIP>>
The definition of "regressive tax" is well established. A tax either meets the definition, or it doesn't.

Why do you keep attempting to redefine this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2017, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
5,902 posts, read 3,168,037 times
Reputation: 11932
While people are discussing labels, I have a big hole in my wallet from all the taxes I pay. And for all the taxes I pay, the roads are falling apart, the criminal justice system is a revolving door and our schools turn out barely functioning illiterates. And the politicians say they can fix everything with more money...lots more money. Just like they've been saying for my entire life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2017, 07:34 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
LowExpectations, You’re correct to believe that a woman cannot be “more” or “less” pregnant; but she can have “recently become pregnant” or “further along her pregnancy”.

I contend a tax can be more or be less progressive or regressive when compared to another tax.
Certainly, the comparisons can be based upon the tax rate relative to the taxpayers’ incomes, or wealth, or their budget restrictions, (i.e. their ability to afford paying the rate).

My English language Guru has not yet responded to this question and some other more personal financial questions. I too am interested in his opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
The definition of "regressive tax" is well established. A tax either meets the definition, or it doesn't.

Why do you keep attempting to redefine this?
Phd and LowExpectations, no, you guys are contending there is only one authoritative definition of what’s comparatively a more or less regressive or progressive tax. That ain’t so.
These words can and often are used as subjective comparative adjectives. The criteria upon which the comparison is made, does affect the determining conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2017, 07:46 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaErik View Post
While people are discussing labels, I have a big hole in my wallet from all the taxes I pay. And for all the taxes I pay, the roads are falling apart, the criminal justice system is a revolving door and our schools turn out barely functioning illiterates. And the politicians say they can fix everything with more money...lots more money. Just like they've been saying for my entire life.
AlaskaErik, because until we mutually agree upon what we we’re discussing and what our words mean, we cannot come to any reasonable agreements. That’s what’s occurring within our government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2017, 05:32 AM
 
2,701 posts, read 3,754,057 times
Reputation: 2867
Progressive, regressive, whatever. There is a tipping point beyond which the system implodes. Too many people are looking to Social Security for income so that they don't have to work. I have a neighbor who somehow buys a new $60,000 vehicle (SUV or 4WD pickup) every year all the while being on SS disability and his girlfriend works at Walmart. Meanwhile, the DW and I work full time and get by with cars older than 10 years.

Yes, Social Security was meant to be a social safety net, but there are TV adverts imploring people to call in and find out how they can mine more from the system. And that's degression to me. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/degression
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top