Federal tax is lowered to the extent that the locals tax. So lowering federal tax in and of itself would have no influence on local taxation.
Income tax is tied to income, not property, so even if true, that is irrelevant.
What kind of progressive taxer are you?
- Thread starter Mise
- Start date
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
I'm okay with the idea of the overall system being progressive while the individual components are not, but I agree that for political reasons it's safer to keep as many components as possible progressive as well. On the other hand, that gets awfully complicated.
I like the look of Mise's graph in #19.
Dutchfire, I'm not sure "as progressive as possible" means so that everyone comes out nearly equal in the end. I understood it as meaning the curve is smooth, such that there aren't weird jumps and exceptions.
Related.. my governor wants to cut the sales tax by 1% (from 7% to 6%), impose that 6% sales tax on a number of current exempted categories, and impose a 1% sales tax on a number of other exempted categories. Naturally, opponents are freaking out, saying that the poor, and the economy, will suffer horribly from this. Among the items currently exempted: "Aircraft, including aircraft rental and leasing without pilots, and aircraft parts", and "Nonprescription drugs including medical marijuana". (Guess which is going to 6% and which to 1%.) Some things, like food and prescription drugs, will stay untaxed. Trying to sort this out into separate categories - three now - and determine which will have the most impact on the poor (or, for their purposes, the budget) is just silly.
I like the look of Mise's graph in #19.
Dutchfire, I'm not sure "as progressive as possible" means so that everyone comes out nearly equal in the end. I understood it as meaning the curve is smooth, such that there aren't weird jumps and exceptions.
Related.. my governor wants to cut the sales tax by 1% (from 7% to 6%), impose that 6% sales tax on a number of current exempted categories, and impose a 1% sales tax on a number of other exempted categories. Naturally, opponents are freaking out, saying that the poor, and the economy, will suffer horribly from this. Among the items currently exempted: "Aircraft, including aircraft rental and leasing without pilots, and aircraft parts", and "Nonprescription drugs including medical marijuana". (Guess which is going to 6% and which to 1%.) Some things, like food and prescription drugs, will stay untaxed. Trying to sort this out into separate categories - three now - and determine which will have the most impact on the poor (or, for their purposes, the budget) is just silly.
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
Yes, I've liked those advantages of this sort of system. The big negatives are expense, moral hazard and having to resist the constant pressures to raise the incomes of retirees, and the unemployed. In the long run where labor is more and more efficient (and therefore less and less necessary) it might be not only feasible but necessary for social order. But now it seems too expensive and too dangerous.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Mise, this is really weird because the same day you posted this, Robert Reich my professor gave a lecture on the exact same topic of how a tax can be regressive in collection but progressive in benefits.
Mise
isle of lucy
Really? How does that work?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Well let me actually read the thread... tomorrow since it's 1 am here 
But in short he used social security as an example. It caps out incomewise, so it's inherently regressive. And the poor still have to pay it. But the poor disproportionately receive benefits for how much money they pay into it. At the lower end, dollar per dollar, the tax combined with the program had a quite progressive effect. But I suspect this has already been covered in the thread.
But in short he used social security as an example. It caps out incomewise, so it's inherently regressive. And the poor still have to pay it. But the poor disproportionately receive benefits for how much money they pay into it. At the lower end, dollar per dollar, the tax combined with the program had a quite progressive effect. But I suspect this has already been covered in the thread.
Mise
isle of lucy
Right, so, if I understand you correctly, the revenue raising for SS is regressive, because people don't pay any more once they reach a certain income threshold (i.e. people only pay on the first x% of income; tax bands decrease instead of increase), but the payout part of SS is progressive, because poor people stand to get more out than they put in (vice versa for rich people).*
Yeah, that's basically emblematic of the entire tax and benefits in the UK. Tax itself works out overall as basically flat / slightly regressive (see the table I posted on page 1), but when you include benefits, it's clear that wealth is being transferred from rich to poor through the welfare system (see chart on page 1), as should be the case.
*-In principle, National Insurance in this country works in the same way, and is supposed to pay for unemployment benefits and the NHS. In practice, it all just goes into one big pool of tax revenue, so there's really no need to treat it differently. Economists wouldn't even treat it differently in principle, but politicians do for rhetorical reasons.
Yeah, that's basically emblematic of the entire tax and benefits in the UK. Tax itself works out overall as basically flat / slightly regressive (see the table I posted on page 1), but when you include benefits, it's clear that wealth is being transferred from rich to poor through the welfare system (see chart on page 1), as should be the case.
*-In principle, National Insurance in this country works in the same way, and is supposed to pay for unemployment benefits and the NHS. In practice, it all just goes into one big pool of tax revenue, so there's really no need to treat it differently. Economists wouldn't even treat it differently in principle, but politicians do for rhetorical reasons.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I like the idea of this thread but I think income and consumption taxes should be studied separately. I think a consumption tax is warranted when the state pays significant public funds to ensure that the consumption can occur safely (e.g. a consumption tax of alcohol sales, or a tax on public tobacco smoking), or when the consumption strongly impacts state-run services (e.g. a cigarette tax is reasonable if the government is the primary supplier of lung cancer treatment).
On income tax, I mostly believe in a flat tax and consumption taxes, but there are strategic and popular imperatives that pretty much mean that the wealthy will be asked to pay for public programs that keep the state competitive in the world market (education for instance). I kind of have a problem with people taking national income and then sending it overseas, especially if they made that money through subsidized industry.
On income tax, I mostly believe in a flat tax and consumption taxes, but there are strategic and popular imperatives that pretty much mean that the wealthy will be asked to pay for public programs that keep the state competitive in the world market (education for instance). I kind of have a problem with people taking national income and then sending it overseas, especially if they made that money through subsidized industry.
