TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale]My combined effective tax rate for 2009 (state/federal/payroll) was over 38%.

Apparently Mark Twain was right…[/quote]

So you are either making well over $200K a year if you’re married or you’re self-employed. Good for you.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

From your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:

“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”

The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.

I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).

By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.

[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.

Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

From your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:

“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”

The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.

I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).

By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.

[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.

Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

From your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:

“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”

The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.

I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).

By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.

[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.

Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

From your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:

“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”

The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.

I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).

By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.

[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.

Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

From your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:

“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”

The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.

I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).

By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.

[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.

Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]

[all]

[quote=SD Realtor]Putting a label on a flat tax is fine at it but there is not anything “unfair” about it at all. In fact many of the emerging countries in eastern europe have embraced it.
[/quote]

As someone whose AGI was to high to qualify for education credit (my wife is doctoral student and I spent $2K on my professional development last year) or child credit (and I have three kids) due to the money I made on a side I feel your frustration. My back of the envelope calculation shows that I got to keep about 30 cent of each $ I earned on a side, partially due to poor tax planning.

But, the governments of Eastern European countries are bought and paid for by rich tycoons who are not nearly as sophisticated as the US tycoons. The upward transfer of wealth and the social injustice is depressing. I most definitely do not want to live in such system. Nor do I want to live in flu’s “they work 6-7 days/week, 10-12 hours/day for $2-3K/month” (and they are not in the gaming industry) heaven.

[all]

[quote=SD Realtor]Putting a label on a flat tax is fine at it but there is not anything “unfair” about it at all. In fact many of the emerging countries in eastern europe have embraced it.
[/quote]

As someone whose AGI was to high to qualify for education credit (my wife is doctoral student and I spent $2K on my professional development last year) or child credit (and I have three kids) due to the money I made on a side I feel your frustration. My back of the envelope calculation shows that I got to keep about 30 cent of each $ I earned on a side, partially due to poor tax planning.

But, the governments of Eastern European countries are bought and paid for by rich tycoons who are not nearly as sophisticated as the US tycoons. The upward transfer of wealth and the social injustice is depressing. I most definitely do not want to live in such system. Nor do I want to live in flu’s “they work 6-7 days/week, 10-12 hours/day for $2-3K/month” (and they are not in the gaming industry) heaven.

[all]

[quote=SD Realtor]Putting a label on a flat tax is fine at it but there is not anything “unfair” about it at all. In fact many of the emerging countries in eastern europe have embraced it.
[/quote]

As someone whose AGI was to high to qualify for education credit (my wife is doctoral student and I spent $2K on my professional development last year) or child credit (and I have three kids) due to the money I made on a side I feel your frustration. My back of the envelope calculation shows that I got to keep about 30 cent of each $ I earned on a side, partially due to poor tax planning.

But, the governments of Eastern European countries are bought and paid for by rich tycoons who are not nearly as sophisticated as the US tycoons. The upward transfer of wealth and the social injustice is depressing. I most definitely do not want to live in such system. Nor do I want to live in flu’s “they work 6-7 days/week, 10-12 hours/day for $2-3K/month” (and they are not in the gaming industry) heaven.

[all]

[quote=SD Realtor]Putting a label on a flat tax is fine at it but there is not anything “unfair” about it at all. In fact many of the emerging countries in eastern europe have embraced it.
[/quote]

As someone whose AGI was to high to qualify for education credit (my wife is doctoral student and I spent $2K on my professional development last year) or child credit (and I have three kids) due to the money I made on a side I feel your frustration. My back of the envelope calculation shows that I got to keep about 30 cent of each $ I earned on a side, partially due to poor tax planning.

But, the governments of Eastern European countries are bought and paid for by rich tycoons who are not nearly as sophisticated as the US tycoons. The upward transfer of wealth and the social injustice is depressing. I most definitely do not want to live in such system. Nor do I want to live in flu’s “they work 6-7 days/week, 10-12 hours/day for $2-3K/month” (and they are not in the gaming industry) heaven.

[all]

[quote=SD Realtor]Putting a label on a flat tax is fine at it but there is not anything “unfair” about it at all. In fact many of the emerging countries in eastern europe have embraced it.
[/quote]

As someone whose AGI was to high to qualify for education credit (my wife is doctoral student and I spent $2K on my professional development last year) or child credit (and I have three kids) due to the money I made on a side I feel your frustration. My back of the envelope calculation shows that I got to keep about 30 cent of each $ I earned on a side, partially due to poor tax planning.

But, the governments of Eastern European countries are bought and paid for by rich tycoons who are not nearly as sophisticated as the US tycoons. The upward transfer of wealth and the social injustice is depressing. I most definitely do not want to live in such system. Nor do I want to live in flu’s “they work 6-7 days/week, 10-12 hours/day for $2-3K/month” (and they are not in the gaming industry) heaven.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, it makes economic sense that, as a group, the wealthier would support lower taxes and would be against universal health care. They can afford to pay out of pocket when they need it.

I don’t blame wealthy people for wanting to protect their interests. I’m just disappointed that they are not more compassionate.

If you look at statistics of the masses of right wing voters, they tend to come from lower-income areas.

Save for Orange County*, and Del Norte County (at the very top of the state) all the coastal counties of California went blue. The interior counties voted red.

I am dismayed at the low-income voters voting right-wing. But I’m not surprised.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/ca.htm

* Orange County went red only by about 35,000 votes, thanks largely to right-wing Vietnamese-American refugees who are anti-communist. The Vietnamese-American community ranks near the bottom of the income level and is a big recipient of welfare. There are about 1/2 million Vietnamese-Americans in Orange County.

While low-income (generally as a group) Vietnamese-American refugees tend to vote right-wing because of their experience fleeing communism.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, it makes economic sense that, as a group, the wealthier would support lower taxes and would be against universal health care. They can afford to pay out of pocket when they need it.

I don’t blame wealthy people for wanting to protect their interests. I’m just disappointed that they are not more compassionate.

If you look at statistics of the masses of right wing voters, they tend to come from lower-income areas.

Save for Orange County*, and Del Norte County (at the very top of the state) all the coastal counties of California went blue. The interior counties voted red.

I am dismayed at the low-income voters voting right-wing. But I’m not surprised.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/ca.htm

* Orange County went red only by about 35,000 votes, thanks largely to right-wing Vietnamese-American refugees who are anti-communist. The Vietnamese-American community ranks near the bottom of the income level and is a big recipient of welfare. There are about 1/2 million Vietnamese-Americans in Orange County.

While low-income (generally as a group) Vietnamese-American refugees tend to vote right-wing because of their experience fleeing communism.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, it makes economic sense that, as a group, the wealthier would support lower taxes and would be against universal health care. They can afford to pay out of pocket when they need it.

I don’t blame wealthy people for wanting to protect their interests. I’m just disappointed that they are not more compassionate.

If you look at statistics of the masses of right wing voters, they tend to come from lower-income areas.

Save for Orange County*, and Del Norte County (at the very top of the state) all the coastal counties of California went blue. The interior counties voted red.

I am dismayed at the low-income voters voting right-wing. But I’m not surprised.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/ca.htm

* Orange County went red only by about 35,000 votes, thanks largely to right-wing Vietnamese-American refugees who are anti-communist. The Vietnamese-American community ranks near the bottom of the income level and is a big recipient of welfare. There are about 1/2 million Vietnamese-Americans in Orange County.

While low-income (generally as a group) Vietnamese-American refugees tend to vote right-wing because of their experience fleeing communism.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, it makes economic sense that, as a group, the wealthier would support lower taxes and would be against universal health care. They can afford to pay out of pocket when they need it.

I don’t blame wealthy people for wanting to protect their interests. I’m just disappointed that they are not more compassionate.

If you look at statistics of the masses of right wing voters, they tend to come from lower-income areas.

Save for Orange County*, and Del Norte County (at the very top of the state) all the coastal counties of California went blue. The interior counties voted red.

I am dismayed at the low-income voters voting right-wing. But I’m not surprised.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/ca.htm

* Orange County went red only by about 35,000 votes, thanks largely to right-wing Vietnamese-American refugees who are anti-communist. The Vietnamese-American community ranks near the bottom of the income level and is a big recipient of welfare. There are about 1/2 million Vietnamese-Americans in Orange County.

While low-income (generally as a group) Vietnamese-American refugees tend to vote right-wing because of their experience fleeing communism.

[Author]

Posts