Let the tax wars begin

[Stone]

Are you going to teach them about how regressive taxation is accomplished in Texas and a greater burden is imposed on low wage earners?

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/pec/features/0400_01/slide3.html

 

[Stone]

Was that a difficult question?

Yes or no will suffice.

 

[darkcgi]

Stone you didn't name your suitor.

 

[The Man]

Thanks! We're just starting the second semester of school. Seniors are just finishing Government and starting Economics, or vice versa. I teach both. I can use this to tie them together, no matter which they learned first. Should make for a good discussion.

Anytime

 

[The Man]

Are you going to teach them about how regressive taxation is accomplished in Texas and a greater burden is imposed on low wage earners?

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/pec/features/0400_01/slide3.html

You misunderstood your link
From your link below

Cost of new flat panel television set $2000.00
State and local sales tax rates (combined) 7.50%
Sales tax paid $150.00
Person 1: Sales tax paid as percentage of $10,000 annual income 1.50%
Person 2: Sales tax paid as percentage of $100,000 annual income 0.15%

Nothing unusual here...sales tax is the same for each earner.
Do you know of a state that makes you show your earnings before the purchase of a big screen tv and then charges the sales tax according to ones earnings?....I mean if if that was the case we would send in the children to make our purchases :surrender
The question is rhetorical btw.

 

[Stone]

You misunderstood your link
From your link below

Cost of new flat panel television set $2000.00
State and local sales tax rates (combined) 7.50%
Sales tax paid $150.00
Person 1: Sales tax paid as percentage of $10,000 annual income 1.50%
Person 2: Sales tax paid as percentage of $100,000 annual income 0.15%

Nothing unusual here...sales tax is the same for each earner.
Do you know of a state that makes you show your earnings before the purchase of a big screen tv and then charges the sales tax according to ones earnings?....I mean if if that was the case we would send in the children to make our purchases :surrender
The question is rhetorical btw.

You misunderstood the link.......as an alternative to conventional progressive income tax to generate revenue..... sales tax is regressive and repressive of low wage earners as you've been shown in your absurd flat tax thread that you called....'fair'.
Maybe the concept of percentages is too complex?

Person 1: Sales tax paid as percentage of $10,000 annual income 1.50%
Person 2: Sales tax paid as percentage of $100,000 annual income 0.15%

The bit about children making purchases for adults is merely simplistic illogical blather



I'm still interested in what Accountable is teaching his students.
But that's not something you can answer.
I suspect he'll avoid it, but maybe he'll surprise me.

 

[The Man]

You misunderstood the link.......as an alternative to conventional progressive income tax to generate revenue..... sales tax is regressive and repressive of low wage earners as you've been shown in your absurd flat tax thread that you called....'fair'.
Maybe the concept of percentages is too complex?


The bit about children making purchases for adults is merely simplistic illogical blather



I'm still interested in what Accountable is teaching his students.
But that's not something you can answer.
I suspect he'll avoid it, but maybe he'll surprise me.

You misunderstood the link.......as an alternative to conventional progressive income tax to generate revenue..... sales tax is regressive and repressive of low wage earners as you've been shown in your absurd flat tax thread that you called....'fair'.
Maybe the concept of percentages is too complex?

I understand it...its the percentage of tax paid on a tv...the tax is the same for the low wage earner as well as the high wage earner.
Thats pretty standard from state to state {a flat sales tax}

Back to your link below it states the following
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of new flat panel television set $2000.00
State and local sales tax rates (combined) 7.50%
Sales tax paid $150.00
Person 1: Sales tax paid as percentage of $10,000 annual income 1.50%
Person 2: Sales tax paid as percentage of $100,000 annual income 0.15%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you feel this isnt fair and the person that earns more should pay according to what they earn?
Your link clearly uses a percentage of ones income as scale...which means person 2 should pay 1500 bucks tax on a 2 thousand dollar tv set.{to be fair}
But hell 100 grand a year is pretty normal for alot of people..so lets follow your same scale and apply it to someone making 1 million a year.
Their tax would now be 15 thousand bucks on a 2 thousand dollar tv set..:eek

The bit about children making purchases for adults is merely simplistic illogical blather

Not at all....how to save 15 grand on a tv...by sending in one of the kids to make the purchase is what would happen,with a ludicrous system of {paying a percentage of what one earns}.

Its flawed from the very start and the very reason it is not in practice anywhere.

Maybe the concept of percentages is too complex?

I understand it fully as shown above.
You have fell victim of your own link stone...it was merely shown as an appeal to emotion to provide the lefts with an argument of unfair taxation{which there isnt}

 

[Accountable]

A tax is regressive if the tax rate decreases as the amount of the thing being taxed increases In the case of sales tax that means that the tax is, say, 8% on 1 to 5 items, but drops to 7% if you buy more.
Now people more versed in politics than taxes are calling a tax regressive if the tax impacts one buyer more than it impacts another because of differing incomes, despite the tax rate being the same across the board, and the amount of money paid in taxes is the same across the board.

If that is the case, then all prices are regressive as well. After all, a 99-cent bag of corn chips costs 99 cents whether you are a millionaire or minimum wage.

It's stupid and meaningless, except as a propaganda tool.

 

[Stone]

I understand it...its the percentage of tax paid on a tv...the tax is the same for the low wage earner as well as the high wage earner.
Thats pretty standard from state to state {a flat sales tax}

Back to your link below it states the following
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of new flat panel television set $2000.00
State and local sales tax rates (combined) 7.50%
Sales tax paid $150.00
Person 1: Sales tax paid as percentage of $10,000 annual income 1.50%
Person 2: Sales tax paid as percentage of $100,000 annual income 0.15%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you feel this isnt fair and the person that earns more should pay according to what they earn?
Your link clearly uses a percentage of ones income as scale...which means person 2 should pay 1500 bucks tax on a 2 thousand dollar tv set.{to be fair}
But hell 100 grand a year is pretty normal for alot of people..so lets follow your same scale and apply it to someone making 1 million a year.
Their tax would now be 15 thousand bucks on a 2 thousand dollar tv set..:eek




Not at all....how to save 15 grand on a tv...by sending in one of the kids to make the purchase is what would happen,with a ludicrous system of {paying a percentage of what one earns}.

Its flawed from the very start and the very reason it is not in practice anywhere.

I understand it fully as shown above.
You have fell victim of your own link stone...it was merely shown as an appeal to emotion to provide the lefts with an argument of unfair taxation{which there isnt}

You understood nothing.
It obviously all went over your head.
All you have in response are illogical childish comments .
I don't even need to parse your comments.....just let your post stand in it's entirety

 

[Stone]

A tax is regressive if the tax rate decreases as the amount of the thing being taxed increases In the case of sales tax that means that the tax is, say, 8% on 1 to 5 items, but drops to 7% if you buy more.
Now people more versed in politics than taxes are calling a tax regressive if the tax impacts one buyer more than it impacts another because of differing incomes, despite the tax rate being the same across the board, and the amount of money paid in taxes is the same across the board.

If that is the case, then all prices are regressive as well. After all, a 99-cent bag of corn chips costs 99 cents whether you are a millionaire or minimum wage.

It's stupid and meaningless, except as a propaganda tool.

Do you teach that farce of an explanation to students?

The Wikipedia article is very clear in defining 'regressive taxation' and it certainly isn't your description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

and
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

and
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Regressive+Tax

and the IRS
http://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp



All you offer is sophistry, Accountable.

 

[Accountable]

The claim that a uniform sales tax is regressive is the very definition of sophistry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry?s=t
I won't run laps on this with you.

 

[Stone]

The claim that a uniform sales tax is regressive is the very definition of sophistry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry?s=t
I won't run laps on this with you.

Defining the term 'sophistry' doesn't change the definition of 'regressive taxation'.....

Did I misunderstand you earlier.....are you a teacher?

 

[Accountable]

Defining the term 'sophistry' doesn't change the definition of 'regressive taxation'.....

I agree. And calling a uniform tax 'regressive' doesn't make it so.

 

[Stone]

I agree. And calling a uniform tax 'regressive' doesn't make it so.

Are you really a school teacher?

And calling a uniform tax 'regressive' doesn't make it so

By the very concept of a 'uniform' tax....a fixed rate for all taxpayers........it is regressive as shown by the authoritative sources I linked to.

You can't buy your way out of this argument with BULLSHIT sophistry and denial

 

[Accountable]

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Abraham Lincoln

 

[Stone]

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Abraham Lincoln

I suspect Abe would be laughing at you along with me


Merely denying the meaning of the terms used, is not a logical rebuttal.
I've used the terms correctly, you haven't.
And I've shown why I'm correct.

More at issue is how long do you intend to beat a dead horse? ( my analogy trumps your fallacy )

 

[The Man]

Do you teach that farce of an explanation to students?

The Wikipedia article is very clear in defining 'regressive taxation' and it certainly isn't your description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

and
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

and
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Regressive+Tax

and the IRS
http://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp



All you offer is sophistry, Accountable.

You may want to read your links before posting them...from your links we have the following below



"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate


How does a flat sales tax make the average tax rate exceed the marginal rate

A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly.
The percentage of tax is the same for both buys...Your link also claims a regressive tax is one that isnt {applied uniformly}...but the flat sales tax is




A tax with a rate that decreases as the taxpayer's income increases.
The rich in the example you have given are not paying a lower percentage of tax for the tv but the same tax.

regressive tax
A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups
How so with a flat sales tax on a tv..the percentage is the same.


Also you havent addressed how you are going to enforce honest shopping by paying a percentage of what you earn rather than a percentage of the product as demonstrated in your first link.

Nor why should someone that makes one million a year should pay 15 grand in tax on a 2 grand tv set.
pretty steep stone....94 percent not good enough....lets go for 750 percent for a person that makes a million a year
7500 percent for someone that makes 10 million
75000 percent for someone that makes 100 million a year

You are going beyond socialism stone.

 

[The Man]

Let the tax wars begin{back to topic}

Texas is one of the fastest–growing states in the nation. Since 2000, the state’s population has increased by 12.7 percent, nearly twice that of the nation (6.4 percent).1 Our growing population is becoming older, less rural and more diverse. These changes will require business and community leaders to address the needs of maintaining and building our infrastructure, coping with the cost of health care and providing the educational system we need to compete in a global economy.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/population.html

 

[Stone]

You may want to read your links before posting them...from your links we have the following below



"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate


How does a flat sales tax make the average tax rate exceed the marginal rate

A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly.
The percentage of tax is the same for both buys...Your link also claims a regressive tax is one that isnt {applied uniformly}...but the flat sales tax is




A tax with a rate that decreases as the taxpayer's income increases.
The rich in the example you have given are not paying a lower percentage of tax for the tv but the same tax.

regressive tax
A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups
How so with a flat sales tax on a tv..the percentage is the same.


Also you havent addressed how you are going to enforce honest shopping by paying a percentage of what you earn rather than a percentage of the earnings as demonstrated in your first link.

Nor why should someone that makes one million a year should pay 15 grand in tax on a 2 grand tv set.
pretty steep stone....94 percent not good enough....lets go for 750 percent for a person that makes a million a year
7500 percent for someone that makes 10 million
75000 for someone that makes 100 million a year

You are going beyond socialism stone.

Again....more childish gibberish from the guy that claims to want to protect the low wage earner with regressive taxation and argues for government intervention with free money to create new jobs.
What happened.....fucking the middle class over wasn't enough?

There is nothing in your post to address beyond it's a lunatic rant.

Sales tax is a regressive form of taxation....by definition of it's application.
You can rant all you want....but it won't change the nature of a fixed rate tax. It's regressive.

 

[The Man]

States with less tax have better economic performance.
States with less tax spend less but also provide the same service{less corruption and are more efficient}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the midst of a dismal recovery where every job counts, one fact stands out: States that tax less achieve better economic performance. Conventional thinking (at least within government) says that low state taxes are dependent upon having access to unusual revenue sources, but that's not it. A state could be awash in oil and gas severance taxes and still have a high tax burden if the government will not exercise restraint.

The secret to having low taxes is controlling spending, and that's exactly what low-tax-burden states do.

States with an income tax spent 42% more per resident in 2011 than the nine states without an income tax. States in the bottom 40 of the Tax Foundation's Business Tax Climate Index (which assesses business, personal, property and other taxes) spent 40% more per resident. In the American Legislative Exchange Council's "Rich States, Poor States" Economic Outlook (based on 15 policy variables), the bottom 40 spent 35% more than the top 10 states
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578099233101373940.html


Sounds like a winner to me {efficiency and less corruption}