Sales taxes are not regressive.

I'm Supposn · Oct 15, 2017

Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

Crovax · Oct 15, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

So your taking away money that is specifically earmarked for Social Security and also enacting a extra 4.55% tax on those who are on Social Security. Gee, I don't see how this could go bad...

holbritter · Oct 15, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

I don't understand that. If the poor have less discretionary income they would be spending less on the items that generate sales tax, whereas the wealthy spend much more on items like clothing, electronics and at a higher price/quality. That should mean their proportion of sales tax would have to be higher.

ttwtt78640 · Oct 15, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

Two big problems come to mind immediately: 1) the basis for determining a person's SS retirement benefits are their individual (payroll) contributions which are not tallied for payment of sales taxes and 2) current recipients of SS retirement benefits would also be subject to paying the new national sales tax effectively reducing their SS benefits.

A third problem is that state/local sales taxes are not uniform in amount or on what is (or is not) subject to that sales taxation meaning that it is not a simple matter of of piggybacking a federal sales tax on top of a state/local sales tax.

I'm Supposn · Oct 15, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Two big problems come to mind immediately: 1) the basis for determining a person's SS retirement benefits are their individual (payroll) contributions which are not tallied for payment of sales taxes and 2) current recipients of SS retirement benefits would also be subject to paying the new national sales tax effectively reducing their SS benefits.

A third problem is that state/local sales taxes are not uniform in amount or on what is (or is not) subject to that sales taxation meaning that it is not a simple matter of of piggybacking a federal sales tax on top of a state/local sales tax.

Ttwtt78640, We do not wish to entirely eliminate, but to reduce down to 3.1% for each employee and their employer's taxes based upon payrolls.

Payroll and wage taxes should never pay more than half of Social Security benefits. Medicare will never be funded by taxes levied only upon on wages or payrolls. Individual purchasers do often, but are not required to to retain documentation of their purchase transactions. Purchases are inconsequential to retirement or medical benefits.

We would never want a federal tax to be dependent upon states' administrations. States have the option of “piggybacking”upon the federal sales tax. This would be beneficial to states that now are troubled by out of state purchases.

Most, if not all states that levy income taxes now retain their systems' compatibility to federal income tax regulations. They're now in effect benefitting by piggybacking upon the federal income tax system.

Respectfully,Supposn

I'm Supposn · Oct 15, 2017

holbritter said:
I don't understand that. If the poor have less discretionary income they would be spending less on the items that generate sales tax, whereas the wealthy spend much more on items like clothing, electronics and at a higher price/quality. That should mean their proportion of sales tax would have to be higher.

Holbritter, the expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

Only for the poor is a general sales tax regressive.
FICA tax is of the greatest regression when applied to the wages of the working-poor and their dependents.
Reducing employees' taxes by 4.55% of their wages, and enacting a 4.45% sales tax would be of no cost to the working-poor and their dependents if they ONLY purchased products subject to the sales tax,

FICA paid by employers are embedded within the prices of everything.

This proposal would somewhat net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Oct 15, 2017

Crovax said:
So your taking away money that is specifically earmarked for Social Security and also enacting a extra 4.55% tax on those who are on Social Security. Gee, I don't see how this could go bad...

Social security retirees are shielded by annual cost-of-living-adjustments, (i.e. COLAs).

Crovax, this proposal to some extent will increase tax revenues for Medicare and Social Security, purchasing powers for employees and their dependents.
It would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Respectfully, Supposn

HowardBThiname · Oct 16, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

Going over to a sales tax instead of an income tax has often been talked about, and, in most scenarios, the basics needed to live would be excluded from the tax. Food, excluding non-essential food items, clothing purchased from second-hand stores, housing, that sort of thing.

Sales tax probably is the best way to tax because it's user-based. Income taxation falls flat.

Aristaeus · Oct 16, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Going over to a sales tax instead of an income tax has often been talked about, and, in most scenarios, the basics needed to live would be excluded from the tax. Food, excluding non-essential food items, clothing purchased from second-hand stores, housing, that sort of thing.

Sales tax probably is the best way to tax because it's user-based. Income taxation falls flat.

But sales tax relies on sales. In situations where people spend less, like in recessions, tax revenue would plummit.

HowardBThiname · Oct 16, 2017

Aristaeus said:
But sales tax relies on sales. In situations where people spend less, like in recessions, tax revenue would plummit.

During recessions, people need a break from taxes.

Aristaeus · Oct 16, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
During recessions, people need a break from taxes.

Which wouldn't happen with a sales tax unless they stopped buying stuff, thus causing a crash in the government's tax receipts.

I'm Supposn · Oct 16, 2017

Aristaeus said:
But sales tax relies on sales. In situations where people spend less, like in recessions, tax revenue would plummit.

Aristaeus, when the nation's economy is down, government tax revenues decline. Why do you believe the nation's sales transactions will proportionally decline more or less than the nation's individual or corporate net incomes?

Governments' have in the past, and may in the future, react to a weak economy by reducing taxes and increasing their national debt. That is not more or less likely to be done for sales taxes or for income taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

Aristaeus · Oct 16, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Aristaeus, when the nation's economy is down, government tax revenues decline. Why do you believe the nation's sales transactions will proportionally decline more or less than the nation's individual or corporate net incomes?

Governments' have in the past, and may in the future, react to a weak economy by reducing taxes and increasing their national debt. That is not more or less likely to be done for sales taxes or for income taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

Income tax receipts from salaried people will remain constant in a recession because peoples' salaries don't fall (if they remain in the same role).

Example: John Doe earns $20,000. If the US enters a recession, the government still receives the same amount of tax from John. If the government was taking sales tax instead and John decided to tighten his belt, the government would lose tax income from John despite him earning the same amount as normal.

I'm Supposn · Oct 16, 2017

Aristaeus said:
Income tax receipts from salaried people will remain constant in a recession because peoples' salaries don't fall (if they remain in the same role).

Example: John Doe earns $20,000. If the US enters a recession, the government still receives the same amount of tax from John. If the government was taking sales tax instead and John decided to tighten his belt, the government would lose tax income from John despite him earning the same amount as normal.

Aristaeus, you post as a writer that apparently has never experienced, and not been closely acquainted with friends or family members who have experienced bad economic times. Everyone suffers some. Payrolls are cut, paid work hours, but not non-paid work hours are reduced, staffs are reduced to minimums, enterprises close shops. In a recession you may continue working (possibly for more hours and less pay). But for those no longer working, your recession is their depression.

Respectfully, Supposn

C R O I X · Nov 21, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

At the end the the sale tax takes more % from poor people income than middle class and rich. We can say pour people pay more sale tax in this consideration.

Reason why it is fair that those with higher income pay more percentage of income tax. And still, even paying more income tax, upper class is less effected by the higher tax in their economic life than the poor are effected with sale tax.

It actually would only be really fair if there is no sale tax but only income tax.

Technically, when you pay sale tax and income tax you are paying tax for your productivity and than you pay tax when you obtain the result of a productivity. It is like paying twice in a road toll, one to get in and again to get out.

JasperL · Nov 22, 2017

Aristaeus said:
But sales tax relies on sales. In situations where people spend less, like in recessions, tax revenue would plummit.

That's actually why many economists do not suggest exempting essentials like food and clothing. The revenue stream performs better in recessions, and exempting essentials is poorly targeted - e.g. the local grocery sells their steaks for up to $40/lb, and that's exempt just like pork chops or hamburger, and my wife and I don't need food assistance in any case, so saving us money is great for us but doesn't serve the purpose of a good taxing system. Ideally it's simpler and better all around to tax just about everything, and if the poor need help buying food, provide them direct assistance, such as through EBT.

I'm Supposn · Nov 23, 2017

JasperL said:
That's actually why many economists do not suggest exempting essentials like food and clothing. The revenue stream performs better in recessions, and exempting essentials is poorly targeted - e.g. the local grocery sells their steaks for up to $40/lb, and that's exempt just like pork chops or hamburger, and my wife and I don't need food assistance in any case, so saving us money is great for us but doesn't serve the purpose of a good taxing system. Ideally it's simpler and better all around to tax just about everything, and if the poor need help buying food, provide them direct assistance, such as through EBT.

JasperL, you and I seem to be approximately on the same page.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
Dittohead not!, 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 service products sold and delivered to individual residences, a flat general sales tax is transformed to that extent be a more progressive sales tax.

My opinion is medicine, or food other than that supplied by restaurants, or caterers, not be subject to the general sales tax.
If we could draft a law that would not tax mass transportation but would not waive taxes upon long distance or luxury travel, I would prefer such transactions not be taxed.

It's difficult to draft legislation the parses ordinary and luxury priced products, I’d want much fewer waivers of sales taxes on classes of products.
In our computer age. that’s much less of a problem for products that can be associated with a primary residence.
We can waive taxes on monthly capped values of dollars and/or units of utility products associated with a specific primary residence. Where the caps are dollars, those dollars should be annually cost-of-living-adjusted, (i.e. COLA'd). This can be applied to such basic products as rent, gas, electric, water, or sewage service. These are utility services delivered to homes by cables or pipes can and usually are monitored.

General sales taxes greatest faults are their inability to waive taxes upon the unemployed poor. But there’s a limit to what’s feasible. An enterprise may not be able to pass on expenses they incurred that are not similarly incurred by their competitors. For example, they’d be unable to pass on an uninsured lawsuit loss that far exceeds their profit margin and net income. But otherwise, enterprises entire expenses are generally passed on to their customers; This is no less true when the poor are among those customers.

Respectfully, Supposn

Helix · Nov 23, 2017

Sales taxes are not regressive.

of course they are. for lower wage earners, those rates are a greater percentage of their income than they are for more affluent people.

rocket88 · Nov 23, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponents of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally do spend a greater proportion of their incomes for such items.
Truly, the poor have little or no discretionary income and the wealthy have more such discretionary income. The poor of necessity generally must spend the greatest comparative proportion of their incomes for such products.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.
This proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security, Medicare, net purchasing powers of USA employees and their dependents; it would to some extents reduce effective federal taxes upon USA's enterprises and to greater than a proportionally similar reduction of USA's corporate taxes, reduce their products price disadvantages to foreign competing products both within and beyond USA borders.

Refer to:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/297779-ficas-most-regressive-federal-tax.html

Respectfully,Supposn

Gas taxes are very regressive. Get a job, so we can tax you to get there!

I'm Supposn · Nov 24, 2017

Helix said:
of course they are. for lower wage earners, those rates are a greater percentage of their income than they are for more affluent people.

Rocket88, Helix, and Croix, the point is that general sales taxes are no more regressive than income taxes. It is not suggested that both income and sales taxes are not greater burdens when levied (even equitably) upon the poor.
Tax on the gasoline item is not a tax on “general items”. As you point out, it's rather a tax upon an item of equal or greater need and expense of taxpayers with lesser incomes.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive. ...
... The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax. ...[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Helix · Nov 24, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Rocket88, Helix, and Croix, the point is that general sales taxes are no more regressive than income taxes. It is not suggested that both income and sales taxes are not greater burdens when levied (even equitably) upon the poor.

income taxes are subject to marginal rates. the more you earn, the higher the rate, unless you are rich enough to sidestep the traditional system. however, most of us aren't.

I'm Supposn said:
Tax on the gasoline item is not a tax on “general items”. As you point out, it's rather a tax upon an item of equal or greater need and expense of taxpayers with lesser incomes.

Respectfully, Supposn

gas taxes are also regressive.

I'm Supposn · Nov 24, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive. …
… The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes. …
… But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax. …

I'm Supposn said:
...the point is that general sales taxes are no more regressive than income taxes. It is not suggested that both income and sales taxes are not greater burdens when levied (even equitably) upon the poor.
Tax on the gasoline item is not a tax on “general items”. As you point out, it's rather a tax upon an item of equal or greater need and expense of taxpayers with lesser incomes. ...

I'm Supposn said:
Dittohead not!, 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 service products sold and delivered to individual residences, a flat general sales tax is transformed to that extent be a more progressive sales tax. ...
… My opinion is medicine, or food other than that supplied by restaurants, or caterers, not be subject to the general sales tax. … If we could draft a law that would not tax mass transportation but would not waive taxes upon long distance or luxury travel, I would prefer such transactions not be taxed. ...

Helix said:
income taxes are subject to marginal rates. the more you earn, the higher the rate, unless you are rich enough to sidestep the traditional system. however, most of us aren't.

gas taxes are also regressive.

Helix, you want to argue the points we agree on?

Within both general sales or income taxes, wealthier people traditionally do (as you wrote), "sidestep" the tax systems. The complexity of regulating income taxes, provide extremely more loop holes, exclusions and exceptions promoting tax evasion.

But There's critical tax rate within all tax methods and systems that will be contra-productive when approached; that critical tax rate is lesser for sales and greater for income taxes.
I perceive advantages of both lesser rate systems providing federal tax revenues simultaneously.

Respectfully, Supposn

Helix · Nov 24, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Helix, you want to argue the points we agree on?

Within both general sales or income taxes, wealthier people traditionally do (as you wrote), "sidestep" the tax systems. The complexity of regulating income taxes, provide extremely more loop holes, exclusions and exceptions promoting tax evasion.

But There's critical tax rate within all tax methods and systems that will be contra-productive when approached; that critical tax rate is lesser for sales and greater for income taxes.
I perceive advantages of both lesser rate systems providing federal tax revenues simultaneously.

Respectfully, Supposn

lower wage earners pay most of their taxes to Medicare, SS, and sales taxes, as i understand it. increasing the sales tax hits the poor harder than it hits the upper middle class and the wealthy. do we have a point of disagreement here?

I'm Supposn · Nov 24, 2017

Helix said:
lower wage earners pay most of their taxes to Medicare, SS, and sales taxes, as i understand it. increasing the sales tax hits the poor harder than it hits the upper middle class and the wealthy. do we have a point of disagreement here?

I'm Supposn said:
Salestaxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive. ... But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax. ...

No disagreement. Respectfully,Supposn

Sales taxes are not regressive.

I'm Supposn

Crovax

holbritter

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

I'm Supposn

I'm Supposn

I'm Supposn

HowardBThiname

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

HowardBThiname

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

I'm Supposn

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

I'm Supposn

C R O I X

Active member

JasperL

I'm Supposn

Helix

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

I'm Supposn

Helix

I'm Supposn

Helix

I'm Supposn