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.
If you consider the truth to be an "agenda," you can think whatever you want. I'm merely posting peer-reviewed research and facts. A lot of people are unaware of the facts.
Your agenda has been proven numerous times. You even claimed that Swedes at $300 000 paid lower taxes than an American making $300 000 and you used the so-called progressive American tax system as proof. You clearly dont know what you are talking about. But you still think you are arguing for LOWERING taxes on the rich, when it is in fact the opposite you do by pointing to Scandinavian countries. Americans at the income level of $300 000 pay MUCH lower taxes than Swedes. Thats a fact. Its also a fact that a Swede making $30 000 do not pay much in taxes. A little more than in America, but not anywhere near "flat" as you claim.
Well a 20% VAT is regressive. You have to look at the whole picture of taxation not just income tax.
Nothing is more regressive than a low tax-to-GDP ratio. 20% VAT means that the rich pays ALOT into the system. ALOT more than a poor person. Because the rich person DOES buy more stuff than the poor person. And that tax revenue goes to fund disability benefits or public transit or whatever. Privatized user fees dont work that way though. The rich does NOT pay more into the system than the poor. The poor pay straight up what he gets back in return. Same with the rich person. Thats as regressive as it gets. Its the equivalent of slapping a $10 000 tax on the poor person. And the same $10 000 tax on the rich person.
All direct taxing of the people is not only progressive, it is down right oppressive, especially when it is based upon your prosperity in a given year.
Just think if your assets were taxed?
A stagnant sales tax is fair.
Tax what I use. Not what I make.
You don't understand what regressive taxation is. It places a greater burden on those who earn less, as it eats significantly into disposable income. That's why a VAT tax, though flat, is considered to be regressive.
No, you dont understand what you are saying. You claim that higher taxes on the rich in those countries is accounted for. Its not. America DOES NOT have higher total taxes on the rich than those countries. Its simply not true. You can claim that they tax the well heeled at lower rates than America, but that still doesnt make it true. You've been exposed before as someone who doesnt know this.
Far more important than discussing "regressive taxation" is a regressive economic system. Because nothing place more burden on those who earn less than having to pay everything out of pocket through privatized user fees. Privatized user fees are not flat. They are at 0.1% for the rich and 10% for the poor. THATS regressive.
By the way, did you vote "Yes?" You're Pro-NHC, no? We can learn from how other countries fund their social programs.
Other countries have strong unions and thus much more equal distribution of income.
We can learn by going back to the higher tax rates on the rich like we had pre-Reagan. And lower income inequality to boot. And of course stronger unions. Lots of things we can learn by looking right here at home. But that doesnt fit your so-called "fact based agenda". LOL.
If you consider the truth to be an "agenda," you can think whatever you want. I'm merely posting peer-reviewed research and facts. A lot of people are unaware of the facts.
Good point. I think that part of it is the progressives want people to be dependent on the government. So in Europe they tax lower income people more then give more in social programs. Creates a cycle of dependency. I don't see how they can justify a 20% or more VAT that someones grandmother who is barely getting by will have to fork over just so some person making $100,000 a year can have free socialized medical insurance.
Yes, I do. I've already explained it. VAT taxes are flat, and are considered to be regressive.
And I gave an example using Finland's taxes, which another city-data member posted:
Finland (local taxes are added to the below rates)
Earned income (euros) Rate within brackets
16,700–25,000...........................6.5%
25,000–40,800.........................17.5%
40,800–72,300.........................21.5%
Convert that highest tax rate from Euros to US$ (I've done that, in blue), and notice the flatter tax rates, and the lower income at which the highest tax rate applies in Finland. The US highest federal income tax rate (doesn't include state income tax) doesn't apply until an income of $418,400.
Which is more regressive, Mike? Taxing the highest tax rate at an income of $81,017.80+? Or not taxing at the highest tax rate until an income of $418,400+?
So, did you vote "Yes," Mike? You're pro-European-style social programs. We can learn from other countries how they tax to fund them.
Good point. I think that part of it is the progressives want people to be dependent on the government. So in Europe they tax lower income people more then give more in social programs. Creates a cycle of dependency. I don't see how they can justify a 20% or more VAT that someones grandmother who is barely getting by will have to fork over just so some person making $100,000 a year can have free socialized medical insurance.
The right wingers dont want to get rid of the system of some people not paying federal taxes while at the same time get federal benefits. They live off of railing against this injustice. If everyone pays and everyone benefits in a universal system, people feel they own it and have skin in the game. Thats what FDR also taught us when he slapped that payroll tax in there to make sure right wingers would struggle massively to eliminate it. They have tried for 80 years and are still trying to eliminate it. But its hard when people feel they have skin in the game. Much easier to rile people up against the takers.
Yes, I do. I've already explained it. VAT taxes are flat, and are considered to be regressive.
And I gave an example using Finland's taxes, which another city-data member posted:
Finland (local taxes are added to the below rates)
Earned income (euros) Rate within brackets
16,700–25,000...........................6.5%
25,000–40,800.........................17.5%
40,800–72,300.........................21.5%
Convert that highest tax rate from Euros to US$ (I've done that, in blue), and notice the flatter tax rates, and the lower income at which the highest tax rate applies in Finland. The US highest federal income tax rate (doesn't include state income tax) doesn't apply until an income of $418,400.
Which is more regressive, Mike? Taxing the highest tax rate at an income of $81,017.80+? Or not taxing at the highest rate until an income of $418,400+?
The overall highest rate is still much higher in Sweden and probably Finland as well, than in America. The rich pay much more in taxes in Scandinavia. So does the middle class. So does the "poor". But the "poor" in Scandinavia make $17.50 at McDonalds, have 6 weeks paid vacation, 1 year paid family and medical leave and 1 year sick leave at 90% of pay. Thats what strong unions can do. Of course they can pay more taxes than some $7.25 minimum wage McDonalds worker in Alabama with zero benefits, having to go to work sick, no vacation, no health care, no paid time off to say goodbye to a dying parent and bond with a newborn. Its two different worlds:
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.
