TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.

Have to agree with Brian on this one. A progressive income tax is the “fairest” tax (IMHO).[/quote]
So is it fair to tax the poor guy who work 3 jobs more than another poor guy that only work 1 job? Assuming because he works 3 jobs, it bumps him up to the next tax bracket.

BTW, you took the extreme cases (very poor and very wealthy). What about the middle class who work 2-3 jobs?

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.[/quote]

You need to get out more.

I do contract work. If I take on extra clients it means that instead of doing 40 hours a week of contract work I’m doing 50 or 60 or 70. Currently that’s profitable to me because the opportunity costs of having less time versus making more money (that isn’t just taxed away by the state/fed) is justified. When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.[/quote]

You need to get out more.

I do contract work. If I take on extra clients it means that instead of doing 40 hours a week of contract work I’m doing 50 or 60 or 70. Currently that’s profitable to me because the opportunity costs of having less time versus making more money (that isn’t just taxed away by the state/fed) is justified. When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.[/quote]

You need to get out more.

I do contract work. If I take on extra clients it means that instead of doing 40 hours a week of contract work I’m doing 50 or 60 or 70. Currently that’s profitable to me because the opportunity costs of having less time versus making more money (that isn’t just taxed away by the state/fed) is justified. When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.[/quote]

You need to get out more.

I do contract work. If I take on extra clients it means that instead of doing 40 hours a week of contract work I’m doing 50 or 60 or 70. Currently that’s profitable to me because the opportunity costs of having less time versus making more money (that isn’t just taxed away by the state/fed) is justified. When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
With all due respect, the majority of people I’ve known who had to work 2-3 jobs were very, very poor. The wealthiest people I’ve known had to do the least amount of work, and what work they did do was much more pleasant than what most poor people do for a living.[/quote]

You need to get out more.

I do contract work. If I take on extra clients it means that instead of doing 40 hours a week of contract work I’m doing 50 or 60 or 70. Currently that’s profitable to me because the opportunity costs of having less time versus making more money (that isn’t just taxed away by the state/fed) is justified. When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.

The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]

These are fallacies.

Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.

The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]

These are fallacies.

Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.

The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]

These are fallacies.

Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.

The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]

These are fallacies.

Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.

The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]

These are fallacies.

Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.

[blahblahblah]

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.

[blahblahblah]

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.

[blahblahblah]

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.

[blahblahblah]

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.

[Author]

Posts