Hillary Clinton's short-term capital tax plan.

[Flixy]

Err yes you can,

If households are classified by annual income, the sales tax is sharply regressive. Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000

http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa.../03/taxes-gale

Of the three main forms of state taxes—sales, property, and income—the sales tax hurts the poor most, says Gardner. State sales taxes are highly "regressive," he says.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/01/...me-gap/384643/

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Loki]

Who cares?

[Veldan Rath]

You apparently do Loki.

Honestly, you should all be praising Loony Lewk for actually quibbling about details!

[Loki]

Except he got the details wrong.

[Veldan Rath]

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?

[Loki]

That's irrelevant to the question of a tax being progressive/regressive.

[Veldan Rath]

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.

[Being]

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.

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.

[Loki]

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.

Are you turning into GGT now? We're not playing by "my rules". We're using the actual definition of the term.

[earthJoker]

Are you turning into GGT now? We're not playing by "my rules". We're using the actual definition of the term.

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.

[Veldan Rath]

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.

I know what the fucking the terms mean.

[earthJoker]

I know what the fucking the terms mean.

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.

[Loki]

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.

I'm still in the midwest. Which means that was posted 10:55 PM.

[LittleFuzzy]

Only if we have to discuss things by your rules/framework.

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.

Yer just being a tad twaty cause he pointed out where he thinks you were being imprecise in your language.

Except Lewk is being equally imprecise and insisting the terms "less" and "more" only have meaning in a nominal context. Which is flat wrong.

[Lewkowski]

Except Lewk is being equally imprecise and insisting the terms "less" and "more" only have meaning in a nominal context. Which is flat wrong.

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

More and less aren't ambiguous terms.

Not particularly no. But they do rely on context for their meaning and you flatly ignored that context in favor of a meaningless objection which demonstrated you were refusing to heed the conventions of the English language. In other words, you were acting like GGT.

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.

Except the top 10% includes more than just the rich. The distribution of wealth and income is just that lopsided in the US.

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.

It's true that the poor very little in income tax (though it's worth noting that federal income tax is just a portion of the total tax burden and the poor pay substantially more in other types of taxation than they do for the federal income tax). But the middle class does pay more, both in aggregate terms and in proportional terms. Or are you now trying to conflate the middle class and the poor?

[Aimless]

So Veldan, do YOU believe the dollar amount is what counts in this discussion?

[Veldan Rath]

So Veldan, do YOU believe the dollar amount is what counts in this discussion?

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.

[Aimless]

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.

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.

[Veldan Rath]

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?)

[Loki]

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?)

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?

[Lewkowski]

And the GGT horseshit, really?

Yup - defending me equates you to GGT on this forum in the eyes of some.

[Flixy]

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.

[Veldan Rath]

Well yes, confounding Lewk with his own logic is like having sprinkles on ice cream.

[earthJoker]

Are we trying to promote an absolute tax system again? Despite the fact that it is totally impracticable.

[Veldan Rath]

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...

[Aimless]

Hey guys I've been meaning to ask, how much do you have to earn to have to pay federal income tax?

[Lewkowski]

Hey guys I've been meaning to ask, how much do you have to earn to have to pay federal income tax?

Depends if you are married, have kids, eligible for hundreds of other tax credits and breaks. Standard deduction (income not taxed) for someone single is only $6200 but you've got people who make $30K not paying any income taxes.

[Aimless]

But they do pay state payroll taxes at least, right? And they don't get free gas and the like, right? And they have to occasionally feed and clothe their kids I hope? I mean, they are properly shaken down every month, right?