European Court Ruling on UK Taxation Laws

[mheslep]

Not regressive at all, much less "in the extreme"

Why don't you think sales taxes are regressive?

 

[Gokul43201]

The obvious way? In many recent elections, a majority voted for the candidate who "promised the most benefits" from the treasury, and specifically for that reason.

Isn't that the primary message of the Democratic Party?

So if this were accurate, Dems would be dominating government in recent history, on their way to establishing a dictatorship. How is that even remotely true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#List_of_presidents

 

[WhoWee]

The obvious way? In many recent elections, a majority voted for the candidate who "promised the most benefits" from the treasury, and specifically for that reason.

Isn't that the primary message of the Democratic Party?

Your post made me think of this video.

 

[bobc2]

I think to keep the cost of running our economy in perspective, it might be relevant to consider the amount of money the wealthy contribute to the expansion of businesses, jobs and GNP generally.

Most of the money in the hands of low and moderate income people is spent on things consumed personally. But, most of the money used by the wealthy is not used for personal consumption. It is invested in a way by which the fruits of investment largely flow to others. When you carefully analyze what happens to their money you realize it is being used by others, resulting in more business expansion and more jobs. Even the profits from investment are continually reinvested for the most part--it is not used for personal consumption. The wealthy enjoy considerably more personal consumption than the poor, to be sure, but most of their wealth is in continuous use by others--it's a kind of capitalistic welfare system benefitting everyone. The ever-increasing taxing of the wealthy and corporations takes away these benefits that flow to the larger population.

The argument that the wealthy don't contribute their fair share results from very shallow and uninformed considerations.

 

[Al68]

Why don't you think sales taxes are regressive?

Whether a national sales tax is regressive or progressive depends on the specific plan. Like I pointed out earlier, the ones I've seen and would favor exempt food, housing, etc, and/or provide a mechanism to refund taxes paid by poor/lower middle class.

 

[Al68]

The obvious way? In many recent elections, a majority voted for the candidate who "promised the most benefits" from the treasury, and specifically for that reason.

Isn't that the primary message of the Democratic Party?

So if this were accurate, Dems would be dominating government in recent history, on their way to establishing a dictatorship.

That doesn't follow from my statement. I said "many", not all recent elections.

 

[rcgldr]

Most of the money in the hands of low and moderate income people is spent on things consumed personally.

Which creates the demand for goods in a consumer based economy.

But, most of the money used by the wealthy is not used for personal consumption. It is invested in a way by which the fruits of investment largely flow to others.

Much of that investment is in the form of the stocks, which other than IPO or company direct sales of stock, doesn't help the GDP significantly, although it does help drive up the prices of stocks that make up a big part of many people's 401k plans.

The ever-increasing taxing of the wealthy and corporations takes away these benefits that flow to the larger population.

The trend has been the other direction:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

Also, from CNN Parker Spitzer episode (Jan 4, 2011), the total tax in the USA isn't alll that progressive. Deduct income spent on the basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, transportation, ...) from total income as a percentage, and the graph would probably show a regressive total tax pattern.

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Total tax" seems like a difficult thing to calculate. Does it count state taxes? Excise taxes? Property taxes? Indirect taxes? (e.g. tariffs and subsidies)

What exactly are we looking at here?

 

[rcgldr]

"Total tax" seems like a difficult thing to calculate. Does it count state taxes? Excise taxes? Property taxes? Indirect taxes?

I would assume it includes all "direct" taxes, but no "indirect taxes", such as those passed on from companies via the price of products. You'll have to ask CNN how they came up with that chart, although I've seen similar ones in the past. Link to the blog, the chart is included in the third article:

http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/page/3

 

[WhoWee]

I would assume it includes all "direct" taxes, but no "indirect taxes", such as those passed on from companies via the price of products. You'll have to ask CNN how they came up with that chart, although I've seen similar ones in the past. Link to the blog, the chart is included in the third article:

http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/page/3

Elliott Spitzer - now there's a guy with "skin in the game". (sorry - just reading the headlines from the link)

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Also, from CNN Parker Spitzer episode (Jan 4, 2011), the total tax in the USA isn't alll that progressive. Deduct income spent on the basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, transportation, ...) from total income as a percentage, and the graph would probably show a regressive total tax pattern.

How do you account for the fact that this graph ignores that the bottom ~43% of americans receive tax "refunds" equal to or greater than their tax contribution, negating their contribution?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Unless we know exactly what's in this plot, it's kind of meaningless. It's possible that state and other taxes are responsible for the effect you see. It's also possible that credits are excluded that that that's responsible for what you see.

We have a source, but the source doesn't tell us what we are looking at.

 

[rcgldr]

I don't know the details of the CNN link, but the other one I posted has more data, and shows that the relative tax burden for the wealthy has been reduced over the last few decades.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know the details of the CNN link, but the other one I posted has more data, and shows that the relative tax burden for the wealthy has been reduced over the last few decades.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

Your information was last updated in 2004?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't know the details of the CNN link, but the other one I posted has more data, and shows that the relative tax burden for the wealthy has been reduced over the last few decades.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

And I posted links directly from the IRS which show the percent contribution of the rich has increased (despite the reduction in the tax rate). So which is right?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Unless we know exactly what's in this plot, it's kind of meaningless. It's possible that state and other taxes are responsible for the effect you see. It's also possible that credits are excluded that that that's responsible for what you see.

We have a source, but the source doesn't tell us what we are looking at.

The graph also seems to be contradicting data from the IRS.gov website, which plainly presents data that the top 50% of the population pay 97% of all taxes. If we assume this is true, how can the graph show the bottom 40% paying approximately 7-8% of taxes?

Something doesn't add up in that graph.

 

[rcgldr]

The graph also seems to be contradicting data from the IRS.gov website, which plainly presents data that the top 50% of the population pay 97% of all taxes. If we assume this is true, how can the graph show the bottom 40% paying approximately 7-8% of taxes?

I think that's 97% of all federal income taxes, not all taxes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If that plot is "all taxes", that's all the more reason for understanding what is in there, as "all taxes" might (probably would) include state and excise taxes, which vary by individual: a smoker, drinker and driver in California will pay more than someone who does none of these things in New Hampshire.