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.
America's middle and lower classes, however, are too spoiled, selfish, and greedy, and always want more benefits/services but want someone else to pay.
You posted this before in response of a previous assertion of the US should have a more regressive system but you forget that in that article Europe is progressive, even more so than the US despite being on the regressive tax. The social systems are what make Europe progressive. These social programs that you and other libertarians do not want like paid college (just look at the threads about Obama's plan for community college.)
The article itself is a failure too because payroll taxes are not progressive like the author claims them to be. Most economist agree they are regressive, espeically when you consider payroll taxes are capped at $117,000 so any worker making more don't pay that for the rest of the year while others don't. This is because more of a proportion of income is spent by lower income makers than higher incomer makers.
Warren Buffet increased his net worth by $13,500,000,000 in 2013. That is $37 million A DAY in "income". not sure, but I am pretty sure it puts him in the top tax bracket.
An 18.4 cents federal excise tax on gasoline is not regressive, it is fair because everyone pays the same amount.
I think you mis-understand the term regressive in regards to taxes. Regressive taxes are when a tax has lower-income entities pay a higher fraction of their income in taxes than do higher-income entities. Federal excise taxes such as gasoline and local and state sales taxes are regressive as higher-income makers spend LESS and save MORE than lower-income makers do. If a higher-income individual makes 350K and spends (30 gallon tanks at 2.4 for all 52 weeks) that is 1.07% of their income while for a lower income individual making 30K, it is 12.48% of their income. That's regressive. If the higher-income individual spend 40% of their income on retail goods and taxed at 8% they pay 11,200 or 3.2% of income while the lower-income individual must spend 60% of their income on retail goods pays 1,440 or 4.8% of income.
Quote:
Here is the liberal's perfect world:
Every year on January1 the U.S. government sends people a "can purchase" card. The Green Card is for people who make less than $30,000 a year, the Yellow Card for people $30,00 to $100,000 and the Red Card for those who earn more than $100,001. That tells people how much to charge you for goods and services.
So the three guys go into 7-11 to get beer. The Green Card guy grabs a six pack of Budweiser as do the Yellow Card guy and Red Card guy.
Instead of paying the $5.99 list price for a six pack of Budweiser, the Green Card guy gets the beer for free plus $5 more, the Yellow Card guys pays $2 for the six pack and the Red Card guy pays $25 for the six pack of Budweiser because his price has to subsidize the other guys.
What would the end result be? The Green and Yellow guy would buy more beer than was good for them and the Red Guy would stop buying the beer. Then someone else (government) would have to cover the subsidies and you'd have a federal program bleeding money with no end in sight.
Why would anyone think that people would not adjust their behavior because of artificial incentives, perverse or otherwise?
I am considered a "liberal" or "progressive" by many posters on here and I think that is wrong. Yes, effectively that does happen with taxes right now. Though this happens with college as Petch described.
Last edited by mkpunk; 03-21-2015 at 12:53 PM..
Reason: Added math to support my stance
I love Buffet. He tells the world he's not being taxed fairly and will not volunteer to pay what he thinks should be a fair share. The hilarious part is liberals swoon over the man. If anything, moonbats should be screaming racist, 1%'er or something and railing against him. Although I have learned, moonbats are not that smart.
Green card can go to college (government subsidies)
Yellow card, some may get assistance,
Red card pays full cost.
Each get the same education but green gets it free, red pays full price. Green card also gets tax breaks, red card pays green card share.
Don't you have already something similar for out-of-state tuitions for college degrees? One of the strangest thing on earth for me. Same education, different amount of money.
Anyway, income taxes have to be progressive, it's "unfair" but it's the right way to be. It reminds me of when I started working in my company. The pay was a junior pay, but the yearly increase was 5%. I think I didn't even see the difference in the pay. 5% for everybody due to crisis, or something like that.
7 years later, in the same company, I receive a 5% increase but this time, the amount is significant because I earn much (much) more, due to various reasons.
So now I do not complain. However, I still think that it's "fairer" if you give a 10%, 15% or 20% increase each year for juniors until they reach a certain amount where they would be comfortable with a 5% increase.
Otherwise, these guys have to jump companies to fill that gap - what they basically do, by the way.
Why shouldn't income tax work the same way, only reversed?
Our society doesn't mix much already. People of certain social class only hang out together, and that's understandable. If even from a tax standpoint no one really cares about the neighbour, what will be next? Total implosion of the country?
Our society doesn't mix much already. People of certain social class only hang out together, and that's understandable. If even from a tax standpoint no one really cares about the neighbour, what will be next? Total implosion of the country?
Yep, and the poor person really gives a damn about the middle class or rich right? They really care lol
States already have the apparatus in place to collect sales taxes, conduct audits, and seek out fraud.
The States can collect tax revenues, and then send the money to the federal government.
No IRS is needed.
Some people couldn't find their way out of The Box even with a map, a tour guide and riding a monorail...
Mircea
That may work but there's one, five states with NO sales tax (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon) so they would actually need to set up a division to collect, conduct aduits, seek out fraud because they don't have a statewide tax (it relies with towns, etc.); two, the funneling to the federal government would require an agency to get the revenue even if the state collects it rather than federal government; and three would they only be charged with state laws or would there be a federal case against companies that go against the law? There companies who actually do this. CAN I GO TO JAIL FOR NOT PAYING FLORIDA SALES TAX?
You posted this before in response of a previous assertion of the US should have a more regressive system but you forget that in that article Europe is progressive, even more so than the US despite being on the regressive tax.
The benefits are progressive, which is what many Americans want. So, why then won't they agree to the regressive tax systems European countries use to pay for those benefits?
Quote:
The article itself is a failure too because payroll taxes are not progressive like the author claims them to be.
that's not what the article says. It says:
"The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country."
And that is in fact, true. The article cites exactly where the information came from.
Here's another look at it, including comparison charts:
I wouldn't mind at all if lower- and middle-income earners were given more benefits and services than they currently get in our country IF we implement a regressive tax system like the European social democracies have. Pay for what you get. Socially liberal Europeans embrace the concept and pay their share, why won't Americans?
I think you mis-understand the term regressive in regards to taxes. Regressive taxes are when a tax has lower-income entities pay a higher fraction of their income in taxes than do higher-income entities. Federal excise taxes such as gasoline and local and state sales taxes are regressive as higher-income makers spend LESS and save MORE than lower-income makers do. If a higher-income individual makes 350K and spends (30 gallon tanks at 2.4 for all 52 weeks) that is 1.07% of their income while for a lower income individual making 30K, it is 12.48% of their income. That's regressive. If the higher-income individual spend 40% of their income on retail goods and taxed at 8% they pay 11,200 or 3.2% of income while the lower-income individual must spend 60% of their income on retail goods pays 1,440 or 4.8% of income.
I know exactly what "regressive" taxes are. It is a leftie word meaning "Richey Rich outta pay more, it ain't fair".
It takes a warped leftie mind to think that everyone paying the same tax rate on everything is unfair because it is regressive for poor people.
I know exactly what "regressive" taxes are. It is a leftie word meaning "Richey Rich outta pay more, it ain't fair".
It takes a warped leftie mind to think that everyone paying the same tax rate on everything is unfair because it is regressive for poor people.
The issue isn't that they pay the same tax it is the proportion of taxes. As I mentioned in the previous post about the gas tax that it is assuming the 350K and 35K have the same car, same fuel mileage and pay the same price at the pump (these being held cp for argument sake) the amount of gas spent for both parties is $3,744 for both parties. However because the 350K maker makes 10x more than the 35K maker, the 350k maker holds onto more money despite the same usage so the percentage of income spent on gas goes from 1.07% to 10.70% meaning that the 35K person effectively spent 11% of their income on gas.
Now to bring up your "ideal liberal world" from another post it actually is relevant in this case, however the case is flipped. Instead of the green card giving the low income person the beer and $5, they give it to the rich who pays less in proportion of gasoline and taxes in regards to their income while the lower income maker now has the red card. The tax itself being at 18.4 as per your original post would be 287.04 a year. Again the 350K maker has an effective 0.082% tax rate on gas taxes while the 35K maker has an effective 0.820% tax rate (still paying 10x more.) Again, the 350K maker has the green card from your example about liberals vs the 35K maker who has the red card.
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.
