Thats why you exempt food and clothing.

Post #28,036 by bepatient 2/11/02 12:12:36 PM Reply	Thats why you exempt food and clothing. Apparently you neglected to read the post. The reason people perceive sales tax as regressive is because the poor spend more of their income on basic goods (food clothing) so a higher percentage of their income is taxed...which is why you exempt those items. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,039 by Brandioch 2/11/02 12:39:10 PM Reply	And that makes it non-regressive? Nope. I read your post. I just want to see you say that a sales tax is non-regressive. Or to see you put restrictions on it so you can say it is non-regressive. I'm going to bet that you will refuse to say that simple thing.
Post #28,047 by bepatient 2/11/02 1:21:35 PM Reply	I never made that claim. By itself, a sales tax, even one that exempts clothing and food, >is< regressive. However, I did not say that sales tax alone should be used, did I? So why are you even bothering to try and pigeon-hole the argument around it? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,048 by Brandioch 2/11/02 1:23:46 PM Reply	Just wondering why you're advocating it. Since you seem to agree that it is regressive. -AND- You're the one with the big rants about "fairness". So, why are you even considering a REGRESSIVE tax in your plan? In fact, combined with the flat tax, the ENTIRE plan you've proposed would be REGRESSIVE. And you think this is a good idea?
Post #28,054 by Another Scott 2/11/02 1:59:55 PM Reply	Entertaining yarn at IRS site. There are some broken links, but [link\|http://www.irs.gov/individuals/display/0,,i1%3D1%26genericId%3D15601,00.html\|What is Fair?] is an entertaining yarn. Marlowe might enjoy it. :-) Regressive taxation has problems. Progressive taxation has problems. Proportional taxation seems appealing (it's aka as a Flat Tax). But (if truly flat) it causes the government to lose control over encouraging or discouraging certain economic actions, so is less appealing to politicians. A national sales or VAT tax is more appealing if it is simple and transparent. It might or might not be regressive depending on how it is structured. (Just as an income tax isn't automatically progressive, a sales or VAT tax isn't automatically regressive.) If it's not simple and transparent, then it's of little advantage over an income tax, IMO. But the people writing the laws usually have people yelling for exceptions - e.g. the [link\|http://www.flatoday.com/legislature/stories/0121prevtaxref.htm\|recent difficulties in FL with the state sales tax]. Cheers, Scott.
Post #28,058 by bepatient 2/11/02 2:16:21 PM Reply	If you insist... ...on being an idiot...don't ask me to assist. Sales taxes alone are regressive. Exempting necessities reduces the amount by which they are regressive. Now...why are they regressive? Because >some< people don't spend all of their money. SO...you add a flat tax on all income over a certain amount. >That< tax would be >progressive<. Would you mind detailing how a combined system of one regressive and one progressive makes the whole thing regressive? I'm really up for some entertainment...and I'm sure your attempt to explain this will provide that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,066 by Brandioch 2/11/02 3:08:56 PM Reply	It isn't me that has the problem. I ask you why you're advocating a tax structure that is regressive. If you insist......on being an idiot...don't ask me to assist. So, I'm being an idiot because I'm asking why you're advocating a tax structure that is regressive. Hard to argue with logic like that. Sales taxes alone are regressive. Exempting necessities reduces the amount by which they are regressive. Ummm, regressive is regressive is regressive. Are you saying that regressive is a good thing? Now...why are they regressive? Because >some< people don't spend all of their money. Ummmmm, no. They are regressive because the people who make less money pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than people who make more money. Regressive. SO...you add a flat tax on all income over a certain amount. >That< tax would be >progressive<. Ummm, no. That would be a flat tax. Progressive is when, the more you make, the more you pay (percentage). Would you mind detailing how a combined system of one regressive and one progressive makes the whole thing regressive? Ah, trick question. Because you've "defined" a "flat tax" as "progressive" does NOT mean it is progressive. The reason why your proposal is REGRESSIVE is that, once over the exclusion amount (flat tax) you have a simple sales tax. Which is regressive. In other words, if the cut-off is $20K, someone making $25K is going to pay a larger percentage of his income than someone making $1million. That is what "regressive" means.
Post #28,095 by bepatient 2/11/02 9:30:38 PM Reply	whatever. Sales tax with exclusions. Flat tax on income over a threshhold. So people under the threshhold don't pay any flat tax. And with the exclusions...People who make less spend more on basic necessities such as food and clothing. More of their income would be exempt from this tax. People with more disposable income spend more on things OTHER than basic necessities...meaning MORE of their income is subject to the sales tax. Certainly sounds progressive. In addition...anyone over the threshhold will be subject to even more tax. Even more progressive. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #28,120 by Brandioch 2/12/02 11:34:22 AM Reply	Target acquired. Proceeding with SLAM! Regressive != progressive. Allow me to quote you. Sales taxes alone are regressive. Exempting necessities reduces the amount by which they are regressive. So, sales taxes are regressive. You admit it. And with the exclusions...People who make less spend more on basic necessities such as food and clothing. More of their income would be exempt from this tax. People with more disposable income spend more on things OTHER than basic necessities...meaning MORE of their income is subject to the sales tax. Certainly sounds progressive. So, sales taxes are progressive. You admit it. So, in one posting you admit that, even with the exclusions, sales taxes are regressive. Yet, in another posting, you claim that, because of the exclusions, sales taxes are progressive. You >DO< understand the difference between "progressive" and "regressive" in regards to taxes, don't you? Oh, I guess you don't.
Post #28,145 by bepatient 2/12/02 3:33:19 PM 2/12/02 3:35:15 PM Reply	Carry on... you appear to have nothing to add. You gave your definition of progressive. I showed you how the proposal fits within your definition. Enjoy the remainder of your recess without me. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Feb. 12, 2002, 03:35:15 PM EST Expand All History
Post #28,149 by Brandioch 2/12/02 3:59:04 PM Reply	"Less regressive" != progressive. I'm sorry if that minor fact has managed to elude you. Or did you also envision some sort of mandatory purchasing scheme in your fantasy? Something like, everyone MUST spend 20% of their annual income (non-adjusted) on taxable goods and services? Now THAT would be a progressive sales tax. Oh, but why don't we just cut out the requirement to purchase and just tax their income directy?

Welcome to IWETHEY!