Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 01-11-2019, 05:55 AM
 
5,342 posts, read 6,172,351 times
Reputation: 4719

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
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.
This is spot on. People are muddying the waters. I see it all the time in my field people confusing actual discrimination with adverse or disparate impact. One is a behavior another is an outcome that isn’t necessarily caused by the behavior, but can be. As stated by Tax PhD a regressive tax has a formal definition. Now certain taxes can adversely impact a certain group more, but that doesn’t make them regressive it just makes the outcomes similar to a regressive tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2019, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
3,285 posts, read 2,666,614 times
Reputation: 8225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
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.
Irrelevant. Dollars are fungible. They all spend the same.

This is an emotional argument, not a factual one. And your line of reasoning leads to a world where, before anyone can know the price of anything, the seller has to find out about their income and stability. "Oh, you're poor, so your dollars are worth more? $2 for you. The next rich guy, it's $10, because his dollars are worth less!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 08:12 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,730,578 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
Irrelevant. Dollars are fungible. They all spend the same.

This is an emotional argument, not a factual one. And your line of reasoning leads to a world where, before anyone can know the price of anything, the seller has to find out about their income and stability. "Oh, you're poor, so your dollars are worth more? $2 for you. The next rich guy, it's $10, because his dollars are worth less!"
that isnt an appropriate use of the word fungible. tax dollars are fungible because the government can spend it anywhere.

the point that the person is making is that a $100 fine has a much greater impact on a $15/hour worker than it does a person making $250k a year. that is why fines/sales taxes/registration fees/etc. are considered "regressive" as they take up a larger share of the person's income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 08:29 AM
 
1,967 posts, read 1,310,161 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
This is spot on. People are muddying the waters. I see it all the time in my field people confusing actual discrimination with adverse or disparate impact. One is a behavior another is an outcome that isn’t necessarily caused by the behavior, but can be. As stated by Tax PhD a regressive tax has a formal definition. Now certain taxes can adversely impact a certain group more, but that doesn’t make them regressive it just makes the outcomes similar to a regressive tax.
Mizzourah2006, we agree a "flat tax" more adversely impacting lower rather than higher income earners in proportion to their incomes, behaves effectively as a regressive tax?
A flat tax based upon the values diamond rings would effectively be a progressive tax. A flat tax based upon quantities of food would effectively be a regressive tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 08:40 AM
 
5,342 posts, read 6,172,351 times
Reputation: 4719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mizzourah2006, we agree a "flat tax" more adversely impacting lower rather than higher income earners in proportion to their incomes, behaves effectively as a regressive tax?
A flat tax based upon the values diamond rings would effectively be a progressive tax. A flat tax based upon quantities of food would effectively be a regressive tax?
But just because two things effectively lead to similar outcomes doesn't make them the same thing and that's what Tax PhD is saying.

Luck and skill often lead to similar outcomes does that mean that luck == skill?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 02:06 PM
 
24,560 posts, read 18,299,405 times
Reputation: 40261
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
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.

Right, but the impact of a sales tax is regressive since poor people tend to pay proportionally more of their income in sales tax than rich people. Of course, I could go out and buy a Lamborghini where I'm paying sales tax on something that is equivalent of a year's pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 05:13 PM
 
10,609 posts, read 5,661,339 times
Reputation: 18905
Regressive taxation isn't a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,712 posts, read 6,774,077 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Regressive taxation isn't a bad thing.
Not if you're on the positive end of it. It by definition hits tiers or classes that can less afford it; pretty tough to find a positive in that.

Oh, except for that 47% thing. Sic 'em, Fido.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 05:35 PM
 
2,749 posts, read 1,786,653 times
Reputation: 4453
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Right, but the impact of a sales tax is regressive since poor people tend to pay proportionally more of their income in sales tax than rich people. Of course, I could go out and buy a Lamborghini where I'm paying sales tax on something that is equivalent of a year's pay.
since sales tax isn't imposed on income, how is it regressive as opposed to being disproportionate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 06:05 PM
 
1,967 posts, read 1,310,161 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
But just because two things effectively lead to similar outcomes doesn't make them the same thing and that's what Tax PhD is saying.

Luck and skill often lead to similar outcomes does that mean that luck == skill?
Mizzourah2006, achievement due purely to luck is due to random occurrence.

Achievement due purely to skill cannot also be achieved due to luck (i.e. fortunate random occurrence). If it was due to skill but an unfortunate occurrence could have prevented the achievement, it was not due purely to skill but rather due to skill and the lack of an unfortunate occurrence.

Luck and skill are different causes of a consequence. Depending upon the consequence we're discussing, the possible extent of luck or skill contributing to a consequence differ.

A tax rate can definitely be described as flat, or progressive, or regressive; but the determination of the consequence's character cannot be determined without consideration of the relationship between the tax rate and the subject of the tax.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top