Flaunting your ignorance about the meaning of "regressive" tax is amusing.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Flaunting your ignorance about the meaning of "regressive" tax is amusing.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
"Even if you put exemptions on the items poor people buy, you're going to end up with millionaires still paying significantly lower taxes than people making middle class wages."
That's the comment I'm quoting. "you're going to end up with millionaires still paying a significantly lower tax rate..." would be a true statement. They will NOT be paying lower taxes though. The polite fiction that millionaires are paying fewer taxes simply because they are paying a lower percentage is the issue I have.
So you do know what regressive is and you whole heartedly support it??
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Whether a tax is progressive or regressive depends on the percentage of income paid, not the amount paid. And you do realize that in your world, taxes on the rich would fall dramatically and that fall would have to be made up somehow.
Hope is the denial of reality
Let's make it up by limitting use of government amenities. Everyone gets the same ration. Don't use them, sell them. Don't have enough, buy some unused ones.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
None of this is relevant to the original statement I disliked.
Even if a tax is regressive, millionaires will still PAY MORE. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.
Who cares?
Hope is the denial of reality
You apparently do Loki.
Honestly, you should all be praising Loony Lewk for actually quibbling about details!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Except he got the details wrong.
Hope is the denial of reality
In what way?
A person who pays 20% on a million dollar income is paying more in dollar amount than a person who pays the same percentage on a $50,000 income.
Where is he wrong...pure dollar amount speaking?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
That's irrelevant to the question of a tax being progressive/regressive.
Hope is the denial of reality
Only if we have to discuss things by your rules/framework.
It's odd that I have to point out that it can be irrelevant but also right.
It's funny because Lewk is saying calling taxes progressives/regressive is irrelevant from his point of view.
Yer just being a tad twaty cause he pointed out where he thinks you were being imprecise in your language.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
True that Loki was a bit lazy by saying taxes when we all knew he meant tax rate. We know he meant that millionaires pay less tax on a dollar earned than non-millionaires. Lewk's idea is that truckers pay more fuel tax than non-truckers. So I'm with Loki when he says who cares.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Are you turning into GGT now? We're not playing by "my rules". We're using the actual definition of the term.
Hope is the denial of reality
Which we are because Lewk was responded to Loki's post. Loki said the middle class will pay more. And they do pay more with the framework Loki was using, which is the one relevant to the discussion's context. Lewk is objecting to someone using the color green to describe something because you could interpret it as a mixture of red, blue, and yellow. While trivially true, it's wrong in-context.
Except Lewk is being equally imprecise and insisting the terms "less" and "more" only have meaning in a nominal context. Which is flat wrong.Yer just being a tad twaty cause he pointed out where he thinks you were being imprecise in your language.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I wanted to say that. When do you sleep? Are you back in NY? Now I want the like button.
@Veldan, if you don't knwo what regressive and progressive tax is, I suggest you to look it up.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
So Veldan, do YOU believe the dollar amount is what counts in this discussion?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I know what the fucking the terms mean.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I believe that it should not be forgotten or purposely left out as we then get into 'Fair Share' territory...which is a lovely sound bite, but never has any real meat on it.
Everyone like using vague numbers...I can't ascribes so to why, buy when talking about tax rates, or statics of any other kind I think it's a good idea to occasionally remember what those numbers mean in reality, otherwise you end up sounding like the nitwits in Congress...with just about the same amount of arrogance.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Then why are you telling Loki that he discusses by his "rules/framework" and his "language", when the terms he used are the ones which are generally used?
You pulled a GGT here, even if you don't want to admit it.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Lewk plainly stated : even if regressive, the millionaire is paying more.
So Lewk acknowledged the discussion...but was pointing out how the real numbers affect real people.
And the GGT horseshit, really?
I didn't start talking about how taxes affect human rights in China, the moose population in Maine, or because Butterflies!!!111!
But I do refuse to let Loki limit conversation on a truly related topic. Are you saying I can't talk about actual tax dollar amounts in a discussion regarding rates (as long as I'm clear about it?)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Considering Lewk sees the biggest point of government as protecting your possessions, it only makes sense that taxes are relative to your income (or wealth), because if you have more, you have more that needs protecting. So yes, rich people pay more, but that's only natural, even without resorting to the other valid reasons for it.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Well yes, confounding Lewk with his own logic is like having sprinkles on ice cream.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Are we trying to promote an absolute tax system again? Despite the fact that it is totally impracticable.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
While it's a good idea to remember what the real numbers are, those numbers also have to be put into context, eg. the context of how much the govt actually "needs" to collect in taxes. You might say it's good to consider how much you'd actually collect with a scheme that taxes everyone "equally" in the Lewkowskian sense. The core of Lewk's position is not that rich people pay more in terms of dollars. Rather, it's that govt shouldn't collect taxes for anything beyond military, police and the like.
Finally, if you want to consider what "numbers mean in reality", then you have even more reason to consider things like how much people pay in proportion to their income and wealth as well as the differences in consequences between rich and not-rich at any given tax rate.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm still in the midwest. Which means that was posted 10:55 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Let's talk about how the numbers affect real people. The US government enforces contracts. Do you think this role is worth the same amount of dollars to someone making $20k a year and someone making $2 billion? How about keeping thieves in prison? Is that worth the same amount of dollars to someone with nothing to steal and someone with billions?
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh it's relevant now?
I'll counter with does it have to be so black and white?
How about some with very modest means, 30,000 to 50,000 vs someone who makes $1,000,000. Those at the lower end REALLY need government protection to protect them from physical threats (police) and danger (fire), where as the more well to do have their money protecting them in less obvious ways (security systems, built in fire suppression).
Again, I'm not arguing progressive/regressive taxes, just reminding folks that there is more too it than 35/25/20/whatever...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Yup - defending me equates you to GGT on this forum in the eyes of some.
More and less aren't ambiguous terms. Its a polite fiction to think that the rich aren't paying taxes when in fact the federal government is very much funded by the rich. The top 10% of income earners paid for more than half the income taxes.
The rich pay more money to the government. You can skew it with smoke screens and "tax rates" and other crap but the bottom line is the poor in this country don't support the government. They are net moochers. So when someone says "the middle class pays more" I call bull shit because even if they pay a higher tax rate they DO NOT PAY MORE.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote