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.
Each of the highlighted portions is totally contradictory.
TaxPhd, I see the cause of your error.
You are not referring to a sentence within post #145, of 17Aug2017, but rather to another sentence you quote from my post #160:
“TaxPhd, a sales tax is not progressive, and thus is COMPARATIVELY regressive to a progressive income tax rates. But a general sales tax is actually a flat, not an effectively regressive tax rate. ...
... TaxPhd, if a tax isn’t regressive, it’s not regressive, but it can be more regressive in comparison to other taxes.
If a color is not dark, it’s not a dark color; but it can be darker than other colors”.
I believe both posts are grammatically and logically correct; (although I do not doubt a more competent writer would likely choose better words to express my meaning).
Your Highlighted portion truncates the qualifying word “COMPARISON” in the sentence. You don’t mean to change the meaning of my sentences?
My post, its sentences and statements are not contradictory to themselves, but rather to any others contending our existing FICA payroll tax is not more regressive than a general sales tax.
I have known some who work off the books and pay no taxes. But the will be disappointed when they get old. No Social Security for them.
I think the most regressive tax is on cigarettes, which I why they have gone up so much.
a general sales taxes purpose is to increase governments’ tax revenues.
The purpose of cigarette taxes in the USA are ostensibly to discourage tobacco sales. General sales taxes are not regressive.
A tax levied only upon products that are more often or in greater quantities consumed or used by lower income persons would be (to that extent) a regressive tax.
To the extent that general sales taxes are waived upon sales of products that are more often or in greater quantities consumed or used per capita by lower income persons, or upon capped monthly amounts of such utility products sold and delivered to individual residences,
a flat general sales tax becomes to that extent more progressive sales tax.
A tax levied only upon products that are seldom if ever used or consumed by lower income persons, but per capita more often or in greater quantities consumed or used by higher income persons, (e.g. a champagne and caviar sales tax), would be, to that extent a progressive tax.
I have correctly responded to what you wrote, and as such, I have no error. An error, if there is one, is with what you wrote. If you intended a different meaning, you needed to have written it differently.
Quote:
You are not referring to a sentence within post #145, of 17Aug2017, but rather to another sentence you quote from my post #160:
“TaxPhd, a sales tax is not progressive, and thus is COMPARATIVELY regressive to a progressive income tax rates. But a general sales tax is actually a flat, not an effectively regressive tax rate. ...
... TaxPhd, if a tax isn’t regressive, it’s not regressive, but it can be more regressive in comparison to other taxes.
If a color is not dark, it’s not a dark color; but it can be darker than other colors”.
I believe both posts are grammatically and logically correct; (although I do not doubt a more competent writer would likely choose better words to express my meaning).
Your Highlighted portion truncates the qualifying word “COMPARISON” in the sentence. You don’t mean to change the meaning of my sentences?
My post, its sentences and statements are not contradictory to themselves, but rather to any others contending our existing FICA payroll tax is not more regressive than a general sales tax.
Even failing to highlight the word "comparison" doesn't change the fact that you wrote that the tax was both regressive and not regressive. Modifiers such as "comparatively," "effectively," and "more" don't change that fact.
This is without a doubt one of the more surreal discussions I've had on CD, where someone maintains that a plain language sentence in fact means something completely different than what is actually written.
a general sales taxes purpose is to increase governments’ tax revenues.
The purpose of cigarette taxes in the USA are ostensibly to discourage tobacco sales. General sales taxes are not regressive.
A tax levied only upon products that are more often or in greater quantities consumed or used by lower income persons would be (to that extent) a regressive tax.
To the extent that general sales taxes are waived upon sales of products that are more often or in greater quantities consumed or used per capita by lower income persons, or upon capped monthly amounts of such utility products sold and delivered to individual residences,
a flat general sales tax becomes to that extent more progressive sales tax.
A tax levied only upon products that are seldom if ever used or consumed by lower income persons, but per capita more often or in greater quantities consumed or used by higher income persons, (e.g. a champagne and caviar sales tax), would be, to that extent a progressive tax.
Interesting post, but it doesn't accurately describe regressive nor progressive taxes.
Words have meanings, and when the meanings are arbitrarily changed to suit a particular agenda, it makes meaningful discussion very difficult.
I believe (but I'm not sure) that what you are trying to get at is "Disparate Impact." If so, it would behoove you to use the correct terminology rather than trying to change the definitions of established terms and concepts.
Interesting post, but it doesn't accurately describe regressive nor progressive taxes.
Words have meanings, and when the meanings are arbitrarily changed to suit a particular agenda, it makes meaningful discussion very difficult.
I believe (but I'm not sure) that what you are trying to get at is "Disparate Impact." If so, it would behoove you to use the correct terminology rather than trying to change the definitions of established terms and concepts.
TaxPhd, language is not my forte; our corrospondence has led be to believe it’s also not your’s.
I’ve E-mailed a transcript of your responding post #205 to someone I believe is more competent than us in regard to this discussion of english grammer. I don’t know if he’ll find and wish to take time for this nonesense.
Regarding your contention that we cannot compare extents of any regressive effects that can be attributed to sales taxes or to payroll taxes, I don’t understand why you believe they’re so “disparate” as to make such comparisons unfeasible?
TaxPhd, language is not my forte; our corrospondence has led be to believe it’s also not your’s.
I’ve E-mailed a transcript of your responding post #205 to someone I believe is more competent than us in regard to this discussion of english grammer. I don’t know if he’ll find and wish to take time for this nonesense.
I'm rather confident in my language abilities. I'll be curious to hear what your friend comes up with.
Quote:
Regarding your contention that we cannot compare extents of any regressive effects that can be attributed to sales taxes or to payroll taxes, I don’t understand why you believe they’re so “disparate” as to make such comparisons unfeasible?
It appears that you have misunderstood my post.
"Regressive Tax" has a particular meaning, and that meaning has been made abundantly clear in this thread. A big part of the problem is that a great many people use the term incorrectly. They describe a tax as "regressive" when it (either by appearance or in actuality) "harms" poor people more than rich people. What is described in the previous sentence is not a regressive tax, but rather a tax that has a "disparate impact" on the poor vis-à-vis the rich.
Sales and payroll taxes aren't regressive, as neither one meets the definition of the term. But they may well have a disparate impact, and as such, I bet we could have a much more meaningful and useful discussion about that. It would most certainly be more useful than what this thread has been from the start.
... It appears that you have misunderstood my post.
"Regressive Tax" has a particular meaning, and that meaning has been made abundantly clear in this thread. A big part of the problem is that a great many people use the term incorrectly. They describe a tax as "regressive" when it (either by appearance or in actuality) "harms" poor people more than rich people. What is described in the previous sentence is not a regressive tax, but rather a tax that has a "disparate impact" on the poor vis-à-vis the rich.
Sales and payroll taxes aren't regressive, as neither one meets the definition of the term. But they may well have a disparate impact, and as such, I bet we could have a much more meaningful and useful discussion about that. It would most certainly be more useful than what this thread has been from the start.
What is more or less of a regressive tax, like beauty, “is in the eyes of the beholder”.
I’ve started a separate topic, //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...l#post49253884
for continuing discussion of regressive or progressive tax methods.
I'd also want to return to discussing the advantages or disadvantages of replacing a portion of FICA payroll tax with a federal sales tax.
I advocate to some extent reducing the FICA payroll based tax for funding Social Security retirement, and replacing it with revenue from a general sales tax. Due to the general sales tax there’d be no net tax reduction to employees, but it would increase tax revenue ear marked for Social Security retirement, better enabling full Social Security benefits for the benefit of employees when they retire. this is of some net financial benefit to retiring employees’ families and of net economic benefit to our nation.
FICA taxes levied upon employers are based upon their gross payrolls rather than upon their net incomes. Anything that increases payroll, (e.g. increased hiring, and/or wage rates, and/or hours worked), increases an employer’s net taxes. The extents of employers’ FICA taxes are not directly related to their enterprises’ net incomes. Thus, FICA is a regressive tax as levied upon employers and employees.
Many are opposed to a federal Sales tax because they believe it has a regressive effect upon taxpayers’ budgets.
The reduced portion of FICA payroll tax rates advocated to be replaced, currently has a much greater regressive effect upon the budgets of employees and their dependents. FICA taxes upon employees are annually capped. Employee incomes beyond annual capped amounts and incomes not derived from employment, (i.e. effectively almost the entire incomes of the wealthiest individual persons) are not subject to the FICA payroll tax.
A substantial portion of individuals’ incomes that are not subject to general sales taxes, are spent for items qualifying for reductions of their annual income taxes. Individuals expenditures rather than their income tax filings, are a more accurate reflection of USA’s aggregate individuals’ wealth and annual incomes. A federal general sales tax, rather than an increase of income tax rates, would harvest greater amounts of tax revenues from those earning more than USA’s median income
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.
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.
