Which of the following is a more regressive tax?

[nickshepDEM]

Poll question: Which of the following is a more regressive tax?

And would you settle for any of these? Why or Why not?

[leftofthedial]

1. they are both unsustainably regressive

but sales tax is the worse of the two

[Warpy]

3. A steep sales tax

(and the least amount that has been proposed is 17%) will kill the two thirds of the economy that is consumer driven.

The only way a sales tax can be made progressive is to exempt things that are necessary to maintain life: food, medical care, primary residence, basic (off the rack) clothing. That will raise the rate that is paid on everything else to about 30%, minimum, and that will grind the consumer economy to a halt.

The flat tax will fall most heavily on the poorer of us, and that means 95% of us. The other 5% will get a 50% reduction in their taxes right away. Again, any tax that cuts into subsistence is immoral and unethical and will result in a maximum amount of hardship and again, the collapse of the consumer market.

These boobs just want to exempt themselves from taxes, and they don't care who they kill to do it. That these are all rich men's solutions shouldn't come as any surprise, since only rich men ever get to Congress.

[leftofthedial]

9. the sales tax with necessities exempted

will never fly in the repuke-dominated greed nest that is Murka

that would be a luxury tax and what's the point of being rich if you can't enjoy all the luxuries you want?

[mmmbeer]

8. Absolutely right. nt.

[Igel]

2. You don't give enough information.

It's not the sales tax, it's what it includes.

The state sales tax here is regressive now, but not terribly so: if food was included, it would be much more so; if gasoline were excluded, it might be marginally less so (it wouldn't work out linearly at all, and I'm not sure where the average would be).

The sales tax could be made more progressive: exempt retail goods less than $15 or $20 (expensive suits would be taxed; the t-shirts I get at target wouldn't be). It would have structural effects on the economy, but non-flat taxes always do.

I'd note that Russia went to a flat tax a few years ago. Their tax collection rate soared; it made calculating taxes easier, corruption harder, and closed loopholes all over the place.

[AllyCat]

4. Ugh...tough choice

I said flat tax, but only through filling in the blanks that would assume the sales tax would be applied evenly to ALL goods except food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. If that were truly the case, those spending more money (i.e. the rich) would pay more tax than the poor, making the flat tax the worse of the two options.

However, I know this clan pretty well and feel that they would exempt "rich people items" like planes, expensive cars, and Armani suits from some or all of the tax, making it disproportionally burdonsome from for the poor.

I don't like either and still support corporations paying their fair share.

Exempting cheaper versions of similar goods (Armani suits vs. Target t-shirts) would encourage people to buy non-union produced products and only fuel consumer demand for slave-made goods from the Pacific Rim and American sweatshops.

[XemaSab]

20. The problem with this

is that Chinese shit wouldn't be taxed, but stuff that was made in the USA and cost more would be.

[JHBowden]

5. The flat tax is not regressive.

I would not support it, but it is not regressive.

A sales tax is by definition regressive and obviously would be a kick in the balls to regular people everywhere.

[cestpaspossible]

6. Since your assertion flies in the face of what everyone thinks

would you care to support it with some type of argument or discussion?

tia

[JHBowden]

7. I said the sales tax is more regressive than the flat tax.

As the poll now sits, I am standing with the majority.

edit -- thinking it over, it depends what we mean by regressive. I do recognize that a 33% tax hurts someone making 15K a lot more than someone making 15 million, and if that is what you mean regressive, then we agree.

[cestpaspossible]

10. Actually you said 'The flat tax is not regressive'

Which does not mean the same thing as 'The sales tax is more regresive than the flat tax.'


So which is it?

are you saying 'The flat tax is not regressive'

or are you saying 'The sales tax is more regresive than the flat tax.'

[Dave Sund]

11. In a regressive tax...

The poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich. A flat tax would have an equal rate. So, technically, he is correct. A flat tax is not regressive.

Obviously there are many other things wrong with a flat tax. The fact that it means more money in the pockets of the wealthy is one of the many, many things wrong with it.

[Toots]

18. Not sound logic

Regressive means not percentage of income taken but percnetage of spending ability. If someone makes a million dollars a year and is taxed at thirty percent he still has seven hundred thousand to spend. A person making ten thousand a year being taxed the same thirty percent has only seven thopusan left. Who actually gets hurt the most in their spending ability?

[Dave Sund]

19. Well, by that logic

wouldn't our so-called "progressive" tax be considered regressive as well?

[JHBowden]

12. Again,

If our criterion of regressiveness is the rate of taxation, a flat tax is not regressive.

If we take things like diminishing marginal utility into account, then it very well may be.

If our criterion is the amount taxed from different income brackets as an aggregate, then even a graduated tax could be considered regressive if the amount of taxes collected from the lower brackets exceeded that of the upper brackets.

Which is it? You tell me.

[cestpaspossible]

14. OK, you're right

a flat tax is not regressive, nor is it progressive, in absolute terms.


My mistake.

[kenny blankenship]

15. Flat Tax is not regressive by definition, just in practice

Flat Tax is not regressive by definition, but in practice it would be very bad for everyone but the uppermiddle and upperclass. It would be a big step backwards for our society and thus regressive. And because practice is never the same as theory it would ALSO end up being regressive in the sense that the poor would pay more as a percentage of their income.

How could a flat tax be mathematically regressive? In the first place, the idea that rich individuals will not create loopholes for themselves is laughable. Who do you think WRITES the taxcode? Who puts all those exemptions and exceptions into the code? Poor people? HELLO!!! Poor people and working middle class families don't have lobbyists or tax attorneys working the Hill on their behalf. Rich people write the fine print of the tax code.

The so-called "flat" tax will be flat for all of a day and a half, while tax attorneys and accountants find a million ways to shelter income from the tax and their lobbyists go to work making Swisscheese of the federal taxcode all over again. So instead of starting with the presumption of a progressive tax in which the wealthy are supposed to pay higher rates on income above x,y, and z dollar levels, the chiselers will be able to start chiseling at the rate everyone else who cannot afford tax attorneys starts at. Tell me that won't result in a de facto regressive rate of payments! But it's FLAT you say. Yes, it started out flat; but the well paid attorneys and accountants (and one is tempted to say Representatives too) of the even more well-paid always find (and always will find) thousands of very "reasonable" "legitimate" "growth enhancing" or "fairness defending" reasons why constituents in the __________ business should be given a little break. There is no reason in the world and no reason I will accept that we should suppose that the ancient practice of chiseling at the taxcode to create and exploit loopholes in the income tax laws will cease. NONE. Proponents of the flat tax always paint a utopian picture of a tax law that fits on a single letter sized sheet of paper. The hidden persuader is the idea that simpler will be fairer. That's BULLSHIT. It's a LIE.

The exact SAME PEOPLE who want a flat tax are the very people who have inserted all the added verbiage that causes the traditional income tax law to expand to the size of telephone indexes. They aren't going to fire their tax attorneys, and simply fold their hands and stop chiseling just because they have pulled off ANOTHER coup to lower their taxes.

In the second place, due to safety net entitlement programs and the costs of a large standing military, (neither of which conditions are going to change) the government has a high level of FIXED expenses. If all the working and middleclass people can pay is N% of their income, (before their standard of living takes a unmistakable hit) and the richer are given that same N% rate as a legal ceiling beyond which their income can't be taxed, then guess what happens? We will have a massive budgetary shortfall (remember we are chronically in deficit already!). That N% is going to be right about where working families pay right presently--all a "flat tax" does is lower the rate of the rich to the same level, bankrupting our government. So then what must happen? Assuming corporate income tax won't be put on the table to seek a balance for the lost revenues (and that's a very fair assumption given the God-like clout of corporations in America) then either the government has to cut even more deeply into services and regulatory enforcement (Repo-Fascist ideologues win, and we may as well abandon government to them forever) -OR- the flat tax rate of N% has to be raised past the point of middle class tolerance (Democratic constituencies lose big). If the second way is chosen, it will set up YET ANOTHER wave of tax slashing and agitating against "tax and spend Liberals" as hatred for onerous levels of taxation is kindled anew among the middle and lower income strata.

WHy the fuck are we talking about the tools of our enemies here on this site like maybe they are a good idea? The flat tax is the kiss of death to everything the Democratic Party has won in the 20th century. IT TAKES MONEY TO ENFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. IT TAKES MONEY TO ENFORCE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS. IT TAKES MONEY TO ENFORCE CONSUMER SAFETY AND FINANCIAL PROPRIETY, MARKET OVERSIGHT AND LABOR LAWS. MEDICARE TAKES ASSLOADS OF MONEY. A national sales tax is just as bad as a flat tax. The progressive income tax has a lot of problems but at least it's NOT EVIL by its very nature. And its problems all have to do with the concerted efforts of a rich and powerful few to subvert it. (Please don't help them by wondering aloud if "alternatives" to progressive income taxes are a good idea) The progressive income tax is intended to be a PERMANENT TAX BREAK for those who need one while still paying for the things that the country has decided it requires, like a superpower military, roads, Medicare, and for, I don't know...oh, LAWS 'n' shit.
The "flat tax" is just a trojan horse wheeled out by the Republicans whose aim is for the rich to begin a new generation of tax chiseling, but starting from a permanently lower rate. If it does not end up totally bankrupting our government or destroying it as a vehicle for law enforcement and social policy, it will raise tax rates on the working and middleclasses to unsupportable levels fanning hatred for "gummint" and advancing the agenda of anti-government elites.

[dcfirefighter]

13. You have to look two steps ahead....

I am a bit of an optimist...

The only National Sales Tax proposal still out there, the FairTax, does not exempt anything, BUT they refund to everyone the amount of tax spent on 'essentials' as defined by the poverty level.

This portion is actually very progressive: if you exempt food & clothing, you actually give a larger $ break to big spenders. This rebate means that those who live under the poverty level (~$10,000 a year for a single person) actually receive more money than they spend on taxes. It's also a great back-door for a future Basic Income Grant, quite possibly the most Progressive government spending possible. In short, every single american adult gets ~$3,000 and an additional ~$1,000 for each child.

The other good thing about a Sales Tax vs. any modern income tax is that it completely un-taxes labor costs. The real benefit here is that this will result in a major reduction in unemployment. With low unemployment, workers can demand better wages...employees will be competing for workers, rather than workers competing for jobs.

The total benefit to jobs will be tempered somewhat by the tax on commerce, though not as badly as would seem. The tax on goods & services is partially offset by reduction in taxes to the providers of goods in services, which, in competitive industries, will reduce prices significantly.

This tempering will NOT effect goods made for export: they don't pay the tax. There should be quite a boon in goods & services exported to other countries.

Another problem will be inflation. With all the folks having good jobs, competition for resources will increase. Manufactured goods will eventually boost production to catch up with demand. However, non-manufactured goods, most specifically unimproved valuable land, oil, coal, ore, broadcast spectrum, and the like cannot be produced, and their price will rise, giving a windfall to the folks that currently hold title to those resources.

There are alternatives to oil & coal, however there is no alternative to land. Fortunately, this problem is rectified fairly easily at the state level: raise the tax on land while excluding the property tax on buildings.

In the end, if there were a NRST coupled with State Land Value Taxes, plus a few other taxes such a pollution taxes, and perhaps 'the original' income tax (~5% on the top 1% of income or some such), We'd have near full employment, near full homeownership, near full energy independence, and a lot more open space. Also, a great deal of political influence (special interest loopholes) would be set back at the Federal level, and most liklely given to the state level, where people have slightly more control.

SO, in short, I'd settle for the FairTax, AS LONG AS my state shifted taxes from income to land value.

[kenny blankenship]

16. Both are so BAD, who cares which is worse?

And why isn't there an option of "neither of these should be considered as contemplatable subjects for Democrats"?

Nice way to frame the poll as a Hobson's Choice! Are we practicing to be Republicans now?

[baldguy]

17. Every tax is regressive.

The wealthy & large corporations always benefit more from govt programs & handouts than the poor ever did.

[bklyncowgirl]

21. Both are regressive but the negative effects could be eased somewhat.

I'd say the sales tax is worse. It could be made better with necessities expempted but still, where do you draw the line at necessities. Would a McDonalds hamburger be considered a necessity but a steak purchased in a restaurant be considered a luxury? Would the tax kick in at a certain price level?

As far as the flat tax goes, a flat tax with a high enough deductable--meaning you don't pay any tax on wages below a certain level, and generous exemptions for dependents could be somewhat fair. Let's say the first $50,000 is tax free and anything above that you pay 20% on. That might compare rather favorably with our current so called progressive system that is so riddled with loopholes that any millionaire with a good tax attorney can get away with paying little or nothing.

For the record, I think a true progressive income tax where the rich pay at a higher rate (and no wriggling out of it thank you) is the best solution but our system is so far from that that one of these other systems might actually work better.

[dcfirefighter]

23. They get out of it

by figuring out what the poverty level monthly budget is, calculating the tax on that, and sending it to you every month.

It's still an indirect tax on labor, which is better than the direct tax we have, especially since it's not assessed on exports.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. Eliminate all loopholes and make the rich PAY their fucking taxes!

That's the most progressive of all. And tax the fucking Bush Criminal Empire out of existence, in particular. Three generations of wealth based on the blood of 6 million Jews, dealing smack and financing terrorism is enough. Let Jenna and her crackhead cousin WORK for a living.