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, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Central IL
14,015 posts, read 7,597,104 times
Reputation: 32691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd, you're contending that a sales tax on food is not regressive if all food sold is taxed at the same flat rate. That's nonsense.
Please...stop engaging him...as an academician his primary concern is that you use the correct word...end of topic. Better understanding doesn't matter in the slightest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 11:47 AM
Status: "Loving the hilarity of CD." (set 1 day ago)
 
5,419 posts, read 2,509,886 times
Reputation: 5307
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Please...stop engaging him...as an academician his primary concern is that you use the correct word...end of topic. Better understanding doesn't matter in the slightest.

Not true at all. You have conflated two very separate and distinct issues. Why would you want to do that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:59 AM
 
4,436 posts, read 4,534,374 times
Reputation: 3408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd, you're contending that a sales tax on food is not regressive if all food sold is taxed at the same flat rate. That's nonsense.
By this argument even progressive taxation would be considered largely regressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM
 
17,923 posts, read 12,651,517 times
Reputation: 13194
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Please...stop engaging him...as an academician his primary concern is that you use the correct word...end of topic. Better understanding doesn't matter in the slightest.

If you know the correct term to use and donít what should we call that? If people canít use the correct term and donít know the definition of the terms they are attempting to argue about what is that called?

If you are discussing something you should use the correct terms
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:21 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
27,270 posts, read 59,185,065 times
Reputation: 30034
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
By this argument even progressive taxation would be considered largely regressive.
In a way... yeah.
But -at this time- that irony is more about the inadequacy of the raw numbers vs most worker lives.

If the 'taxation scheme' were limited or allowed to first fully satisfy the human needs
(Medical Pensions etc) that the income is supposed to first be about (which isn't the case now)
then you could pick up the conversation again from that point.

But there's still only so much blood in the turnip.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:50 PM
 
891 posts, read 310,231 times
Reputation: 2775
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Please...stop engaging him...as an academician his primary concern is that you use the correct word...end of topic. Better understanding doesn't matter in the slightest.
Understanding is not enhanced by using terms without regard to their commonly accepted meaning.

Why is it so hard to understand that a flat tax, vis-a-vis what is being taxed, is BY DEFINITION neither progressive nor regressive? Maybe you'd be better served by simply calling a tax that you don't like simply a 'bad tax'. Or does the word 'regressive' sound more erudite and scientific to you?

Words have meaning.
If you don't like what a word means, use another one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:33 PM
 
1,182 posts, read 612,672 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
You, along with many others, are conflating (or confusing) the issues of regressivity and disproportionate impact.

Simple question that I posed previously in this thread, and no one has answered it, so I will specifically address it to you:

What do you call a tax where the rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases?
TaxPhd, the actual rate or the "effective" rate? It makes a difference. You're discussing two different things as if thay were the same thing. They ain't the same. rates them selves are usually, but not always applied in a flat manner.
A tax can be drafted to be effectively flat, or progressive, or regressive. They sometimes effect different subjects and sub-categories of subjects in different manners.

When most, (if not all economists) are using the terms "regressive, or progressive, or flat" as describing the character of a tax, they're usually describing it's effect upon the nation's aggregate population. (There is some ambiguity between discussion of effects due to individual's incomes or wealth).
Your term "base" is inexplicable within the context of your question. Thus, there's no definite answer to your inexplicable question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:52 PM
Status: "Loving the hilarity of CD." (set 1 day ago)
 
5,419 posts, read 2,509,886 times
Reputation: 5307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd, the actual rate or the "effective" rate? It makes a difference. You're discussing two different things as if thay were the same thing. They ain't the same. rates them selves are usually, but not always applied in a flat manner.
A tax can be drafted to be effectively flat, or progressive, or regressive. They sometimes effect different subjects and sub-categories of subjects in different manners.

When most, (if not all economists) are using the terms "regressive, or progressive, or flat" as describing the character of a tax, they're usually describing it's effect upon the nation's aggregate population. (There is some ambiguity between discussion of effects due to individual's incomes or wealth).
Your term "base" is inexplicable within the context of your question. Thus, there's no definite answer to your inexplicable question.
We've been through this before. If you're unwilling to understand it, that's OK, but we won't be having much of a conversation.

The "base" that I've described is quite simple. It's simply what the tax is assessed on. For income taxes, the "base" is taxable income. For sales tax, the base is taxable sales. For property taxes, the base is (generally) assessed property values, for Social Security taxes, the base is Social Security wages. I could go on, but anyone possessed of even a modicum of intellectual honesty will understand perfectly what I'm talking about.

There IS a definite answer to my very explicable question. It's perfectly clear why you and everyone else has avoided answering it. It's because the very clear answer would put an end to this nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:54 PM
 
2,370 posts, read 1,505,662 times
Reputation: 5144
I’m so amazed by the ferocity that regressive, progressive, and disproportionate gets discussed here.

I’ve spent hundreds of hours at CPE trainings, professional conferences, in big four meetings, and more than 10,000 hours on the job and never hear these terms debated or discussed. On here, it’s THE hot topic that generates dozens of pages of replies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
2,922 posts, read 1,061,610 times
Reputation: 5573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Iím so amazed by the ferocity that regressive, progressive, and disproportionate gets discussed here.

Iíve spent hundreds of hours at CPE trainings, professional conferences, in big four meetings, and more than 10,000 hours on the job and never hear these terms debated or discussed. On here, itís THE hot topic that generates dozens of pages of replies.

That's because your professional concern is the fact of tax law as it is, not the theory of tax law as it could be.
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