Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NinjaBoot]

Um, no, the average is what I'm talking about so I really don't see how specific examples illuminate that.

And why give you information that you will just reject out of hand anyway?

Because you are mistaken on what constitutes a regressive tax! 

The average you are referring to would be an proportional tax. 

Specifically, a Payroll tax would be an example of a Regressive tax (according to wikipedia anyways).

Do regressive taxes constitute a whole whack of taxes outside of the progressive income tax?  Yes, but these are taxes on-top of an already progressive tax system.

[mainiac]

Repeating that the income tax is progressive doesn't change the fact that it is not the entire tax system.  Crazy, right?

[NinjaBoot]

Repeating that the income tax is progressive doesn't change the fact that it is not the entire tax system.  Crazy, right?

Neither does arguing that regressive taxes and a progressive income tax system equal a tax system that is slightly progressive. 

The rich are still getting taxed more than everybody else, and the more money you make, the more you get taxed.  That is, by definition, a progressive tax system.  The data I provided backs this up.  Regressive taxes are just more taxes ontop of the system.  They are not the system. 

If you are arguing that somehow the regressive taxes end up costing the rich more and the poor less, therefore benefiting the poor more and the rich less, is not true because regressive taxes are equal for everyone. 

If you want to get into greater detail, then yes, there are more tax breaks available to rich people for them to benefit from, thus resulting in instances where the rich end up paying less taxes, but that is to benefit corporations and not individuals as a whole.  And in many of these cases, it is the result of the complexity of the system that has created such loopholes to begin with in the first place. 

Seriously, does anybody refer to the American tax system as something NOT progressive?  Slightly progressive is still progressive, no matter how many hairs you want to split.

[mainiac]

A regressive tax by definition affects the poor more then the rich.

I pay the payroll tax rate on all my income.  Bill Gates pays it only on the first few hundred thousand.  It affects me more.

[Sirus]

The rich are still getting taxed more than everybody else, and the more money you make, the more you get taxed.

So how come Mitt Romney paid less in taxes (percentage-wise and actual amount) than Obama, despite Romney making much more money?

[mainiac]

Romney paid less in absolute terms?  Damn, I guess that didn't penetrate my cloud of despair.

[Sirus]

Well, maybe. I know he paid less percent-wise, but I don't have the hard numbers on hand. I guess I should look them up, but I wanted to ask the question before we left the discussion behind.

(every time I tell myself, "no more posting in this thread!" and I keep getting pulled back in)

ETA: I was wrong! My bad!
According to whitehouse.gov, the Obamas earned $1,728,096 and paid $453,770 in taxes. Tax rate: 26.25%

I was right about the percentage thing though. According to the NY Times, Romney and his wife made $27 million while paying around $3 million; a lot more money on paper, but that's only an 11.11% tax rate.

[NinjaBoot]

Well, maybe. I know he paid less percent-wise, but I don't have the hard numbers on hand. I guess I should look them up, but I wanted to ask the question before we left the discussion behind.

(every time I tell myself, "no more posting in this thread!" and I keep getting pulled back in)

ETA: I was wrong! My bad!
According to whitehouse.gov, the Obamas earned $1,728,096 and paid $453,770 in taxes. Tax rate: 26.25%

I was right about the percentage thing though. According to the NY Times, Romney and his wife made $27 million while paying around $3 million; a lot more money on paper, but that's only an 11.11% tax rate.

So.. what?  Romney still paid more money in taxes.  Does it make him less desirable than Obama because he actually has the business sense to use the tax breaks available to him? 

[Sirus]

Why does he (or any rich person) need so many tax breaks? The dude paid the same percentage as someone who made $80,000; that's less than .5% of what Romney made.

[mainiac]

I don't want progressive taxation because I hate the rich.  I want progressive taxation because the rich have more money and it's less of a burden on someone making a million dollars a year to take a third of his income then it would be for someone making 50k.

Once again your "undesirable person" standard is you begging the question for a question completely different then what we mean.  This is commonly known as a "strawman."

[NinjaBoot]

Why does he (or any rich person) need so many tax breaks? The dude paid the same percentage as someone who made $80,000; that's less than .5% of what Romney made.

Who do you think has the ability to create businesses and spend large amounts of money that directly benefits the economy and other companies?

These rich people are not just sitting on a huge pile of cash (unless they're billionaires).  The majority of their money is tied up in ownership of stock in companies.  Buying stock in companies benefits them from providing them a direct cash influx.  For any business this is a good thing.  For doing so, they get a percentage of the companies profit (10% share in a company means 10% of their profit goes to you, depending on what kind of stock it is). 

[mainiac]

Who do you think has the ability to create businesses and spend large amounts of money that directly benefits the economy and other companies?

Bank deposits.  Stocks.  Mutual Funds.  Bonds.  Government direct investment.

These are what are commonly referred to as "capital" and are used by our system of "capitalism".  One of the basic tenets of capital is that the first four of these things are highly interchangeable and inter related.  So Romney having tons of money no more gives our economy more capitol then if a bunch of people had the same amount of money in small savings accounts.

I shouldn't be surprised though, your posts to this point have been very hostile towards capitalist ideas.

[NinjaBoot]

I don't want progressive taxation because I hate the rich.  I want progressive taxation because the rich have more money and it's less of a burden on someone making a million dollars a year to take a third of his income then it would be for someone making 50k.

Once again your "undesirable person" standard is you begging the question for a question completely different then what we mean.  This is commonly known as a "strawman."

Then that would involve actually changing the tax-rate system itself. 

That would either mean reforming the entire tax system to close the myriad of loopholes that are open to abuse, or tossing the whole thing out and rolling something more easier to digest in.  I do not disagree with this.

What I am against however, is the notion that taxing the rich is a positive thing to begin with.  The reasons for this are twofold, for one, it means less capital flowing around the economy, whether through rich people buying nice things, or rich people investing money into companies/starting up businesses (which means more jobs!). 

The second is that it doesn't address the fact that the government spends too much money to begin with.

[Sirus]

What I am against however, is the notion that taxing the rich is a positive thing to begin with.  The reasons for this are twofold, for one, it means less capital flowing around the economy, whether through rich people buying nice things

Rich people buying nice things typically benefits the other rich, or economies in other countries. Case in point: Mercedes Benz. Foreign-made, expensive cars that don't benefit the economy at home very much.

, or rich people investing company into companies/starting up businesses (which means more jobs!)

Only works until the rich person drives the company into the ground before selling it. Goodbye potential competitor, hello money back. Isn't that what Romney or one of the other candidates/former candidates did?

[mainiac]

Yes rich people can invest in bussiness.  But so can everyone else.  Literally everyone.

This holds even more strongly in the abomination of an economic system that our conservative politicians spout.  According to their neoclassical drivel, the markets are naturally self correcting in very swift periods.  That means that the effects of me putting $50 into a bank account, spending $50 on pot and tie-die and Mitt Romney being a capitalist superman and buying another $50 of stock are the exact same thing.  Not in left wing wishy-walky economics.  This is right wing neo-classical capitalist superman talk.  So you are not in fact presenting an argument for lower taxes on the rich.