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 Yesterday, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
1,890 posts, read 921,630 times
Reputation: 4385

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Mr R put it better than me - I'll restate it as that you can't judge things like this as a single narrow continuum or in some kind of vacuum. We're beyond Econ 101 here, where all problems fit on a whiteboard.
Both of you just ducked and weaved past the question. Airy hand-waving isn't a response. Let's try this again...

Please explain precisely how a flat tax is "regressive". Please stick to factual, emotionally neutral language and use supportable figures. I submit, again, the example I gave, and ask you to demonstrate where the "regressiveness" is.

Go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 04:11 PM
 
900 posts, read 672,623 times
Reputation: 1766
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
a flat % tax rate wouldnt be regressive. other taxes like sales taxes, fees, fines, etc. would be considered regressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
For what kind of taxes? Those are typically flat percentages or rates.
Yes, but someone making $500k spends almost none of their income on food sales tax and gas tax while someone making $25k is impacted by these rates. There's also an impervious area tax (to pay for flood mitigation) in my city. A 3000 square foot 3 story house worth $1m will pay the same tax as a 1000 square foot ranch house worth $80k. These are examples of regressive taxes in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:30 PM
Status: "Loving the hillarity of CD." (set 3 days ago)
 
5,373 posts, read 2,499,661 times
Reputation: 5255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pfalz View Post
Yes, but someone making $500k spends almost none of their income on food sales tax and gas tax while someone making $25k is impacted by these rates. There's also an impervious area tax (to pay for flood mitigation) in my city. A 3000 square foot 3 story house worth $1m will pay the same tax as a 1000 square foot ranch house worth $80k. These are examples of regressive taxes in my opinion.

The first one is an example of a tax with disproportionate impact, not a regressive tax. The second one is a regressive tax, if the base upon which the tax is assessed is home value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,552 posts, read 1,506,011 times
Reputation: 6518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
Please explain precisely how a flat tax is "regressive". Please stick to factual, emotionally neutral language and use supportable figures. I submit, again, the example I gave, and ask you to demonstrate where the "regressiveness" is.
In the simplest form, as has already been said, $1 is a lot more value to someone whose net worth is $50k than it is to someone who's worth millions. A $50 street assessment that wipes out a family's food budget is pocket change to someone further up the scale.

But if you want to argue that it's $50 to both and thus "flat" and "not regressive," feel free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,149 posts, read 10,806,967 times
Reputation: 13637
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
That doesn't make it a regressive tax. It is a tax with a disproportionate impact.


By definition, a regressive tax is the opposite of a progressive tax. It is one where the rate increases as the base to which the rate is applied decreases.
You're just wrong. As you said in Post #4, a tax that charges a higher rate to people with lower income, as I described, is the definition of a regressive tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,149 posts, read 10,806,967 times
Reputation: 13637
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
That doesn't make it a regressive tax. It is a tax with a disproportionate impact.


By definition, a regressive tax is the opposite of a progressive tax. It is one where the rate increases as the base to which the rate is applied decreases.
You're just wrong. As you said in Post #4, a tax that charges a higher rate to people with lower income, as I described, is the definition of a regressive tax.

This is why sales taxes, even though the rate is f'd later, are such a clear example of a regressive tax.

One would think someone with your screen name would be able to understand that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:09 PM
 
12,150 posts, read 6,312,697 times
Reputation: 22311
It depends what youíre taxing. If youíre just taxing earned income, the wealthy can escape most of the tax.

Massachusetts has a 5.05% flat income tax on everything. Thatís not particularly regressive. Since everyone pays the same rate, there is massive political backlash any time a politician tries to raise the rate. Tank Commander Dukakis was pretty unpopular when he hiked the tax rate. The working class and lower middle class wanted to lynch him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:10 PM
Status: "Loving the hillarity of CD." (set 3 days ago)
 
5,373 posts, read 2,499,661 times
Reputation: 5255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
You're just wrong. As you said in Post #4, a tax that charges a higher rate to people with lower income, as I described, is the definition of a regressive tax.

No, I'm not wrong. RIF. Pay attention to the highlight below:


Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
That doesn't make it a regressive tax. It is a tax with a disproportionate impact.


By definition, a regressive tax is the opposite of a progressive tax. It is one where the rate increases as the base to which the rate is applied decreases.

In the case of property tax, property value is the base upon which the tax is assessed, not income. If the property value changes, the tax rate doesn't. Therefore, not regressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:13 PM
Status: "Loving the hillarity of CD." (set 3 days ago)
 
5,373 posts, read 2,499,661 times
Reputation: 5255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
You're just wrong. As you said in Post #4, a tax that charges a higher rate to people with lower income, as I described, is the definition of a regressive tax.

This is why sales taxes, even though the rate is f'd later, are such a clear example of a regressive tax.
This is answered in the post above, but the answer is the same for sales taxes. The base upon which a sales tax is assessed is sales, not income.

Both sales and property taxes are examples of taxes with disparate impact, but neither one is a regressive tax.

Quote:
One would think someone with your screen name would be able to understand that.
I understand it perfectly, and it's clear as well who doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,149 posts, read 10,806,967 times
Reputation: 13637
It is clear who doesn't. Maybe you can get a refund on that Ph. D.
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, 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