Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is how to understand a tax is regressive:
If it takes $10,000 to survive on the bare necessities, and you earn $10,000 in income, then have ten percent taxed away from you, you are left with $9,000 and don't have enough to survive.
If you earn $500,000 and have $50,000 taxed away from you, you not only have enough left over to survive, you have plenty left over for luxuries.
Both people were taxed the same rate, but the impact is much greater on one than the other.
That's a regressive tax.
That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
You have to do the math. It never changes. The more you make the less a flat tax takes out of you. it's your effective tax rate. In my example above the man making $1,000 paid twice the rate of the guy making $2,000 even though they paid the same tax on the same food, $20. Find a guy making $5,000 paying that $20 and he paid 1/5 of the first guy, or the first guy paid five times as much. That's what a regressive tax means.Here is how to understand a tax is regressive:
If it takes $10,000 to survive on the bare necessities, and you earn $10,000 in income, then have ten percent taxed away from you, you are left with $9,000 and don't have enough to survive.
If you earn $500,000 and have $50,000 taxed away from you, you not only have enough left over to survive, you have plenty left over for luxuries.
Both people were taxed the same rate, but the impact is much greater on one than the other.
That's a regressive tax.
That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
Here is how to understand a tax is regressive:
If it takes $10,000 to survive on the bare necessities, and you earn $10,000 in income, then have ten percent taxed away from you, you are left with $9,000 and don't have enough to survive.
If you earn $500,000 and have $50,000 taxed away from you, you not only have enough left over to survive, you have plenty left over for luxuries.
Both people were taxed the same rate, but the impact is much greater on one than the other.
That's a regressive tax.
That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder. < Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia >
Are you going to continue with your foolishness that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?
I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.Here is how to understand a tax is regressive:
If it takes $10,000 to survive on the bare necessities, and you earn $10,000 in income, then have ten percent taxed away from you, you are left with $9,000 and don't have enough to survive.
If you earn $500,000 and have $50,000 taxed away from you, you not only have enough left over to survive, you have plenty left over for luxuries.
Both people were taxed the same rate, but the impact is much greater on one than the other.
That's a regressive tax.
That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder. < Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia >
Are you going to continue with your foolishness that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Are you serious? How does a flat tax take a larger percentage from anyone? The rate is the same no matter how much you make.
I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.Here is how to understand a tax is regressive:
If it takes $10,000 to survive on the bare necessities, and you earn $10,000 in income, then have ten percent taxed away from you, you are left with $9,000 and don't have enough to survive.
If you earn $500,000 and have $50,000 taxed away from you, you not only have enough left over to survive, you have plenty left over for luxuries.
Both people were taxed the same rate, but the impact is much greater on one than the other.
That's a regressive tax.
That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder. < Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia >
Are you going to continue with your foolishness that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Are you serious? How does a flat tax take a larger percentage from anyone? The rate is the same no matter how much you make.
The vast majority of expenses since 1981 has been military spending. Social Security and Medicare pay for itself, except that $3 trillion has been stolen from the fund. Transportation spending (roads and bridges) for the last 30 years has been neglected in favor of military spending. 3% goes to transportation. Education is only 3%. Aid to the poor (welfare) is 9%, which includes unemployment and workers comp. Pensions are 23% most of which it says goes to old age. I presume that's Social Security...but that would be solvent if $3 trillion had not been stolen from the fund. I'd like to know how much goes to congress and POTUS retirees. Healthcare is the biggest part of the pie at 28%, which seems deceiving since insurance is supposed to be paying that. Really shows how much the medical industry is fucking this country. The pie says only 20% is defense spending, but down below the pie it says the the defense budget is $964 billion...the largest number of expenditures. Doesn't add up...That happens, when you borrow money instead of raising taxes and cuttings expenses to pay the bills.So those that have the money must pay off the debt, so that their taxes would be lower. The Poor don't have the money, corporations have it. They are the ones that ran up the debt, they must pay it off if their businesses are to survive. Lower taxes only runs up the debt more, makes the interest on the debt more. Interest on the debt for the last four months is $147 billion +...it's in the link.So?Tax payers have paid over $10 trillion in interest on the national debt since 1988.Just curious
What interest rate do we pay on our debt?
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
Who claimed the tax rate varied? Not I or anyone else trying to get through your skull that a flat tax is regressive! You don't like widely accepted definitions, then that's your issue to tilt with the rest of the world, within your majority of ONE or to find other flat earther's with whom to commiserate!I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.Here is how to understand a tax is regressive:
If it takes $10,000 to survive on the bare necessities, and you earn $10,000 in income, then have ten percent taxed away from you, you are left with $9,000 and don't have enough to survive.
If you earn $500,000 and have $50,000 taxed away from you, you not only have enough left over to survive, you have plenty left over for luxuries.
Both people were taxed the same rate, but the impact is much greater on one than the other.
That's a regressive tax.
That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder. < Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia >
Are you going to continue with your foolishness that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Are you serious? How does a flat tax take a larger percentage from anyone? The rate is the same no matter how much you make.
You're the one posting about variable percentages in a thread about the flat tax and you're calling me ignorant. OK, whatever. Show me how the rate varies with a flat tax. I understand that some of you are really into "fairness", if that's what you care about then make that argument but don't try to rewrite etched in stone definitions.
Who claimed the tax rate varied? Not I or anyone else trying to get through your skull that a flat tax is regressive! You don't like widely accepted definitions, then that's your issue to tilt with the rest of the world, within your majority of ONE or to find other flat earther's with whom to commiserate!I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.That's not regressive. In fact in your example the rich person paid far more than the poor person. If you're going to go with the position that equality hurts then I think you have to see both sides.
For the sake of argument let's say the average income is $50K. The tax rate on your first $50K is 20%. Everyone pays that, it's not unfair. Then we tax every dollar above $50K at 10%. That's a regressive tax and it's still not unfair because people who don't make more than $50K aren't taxed at all on non-existent earnings.
A flat tax doesn't lower the rate for upper level income. It's not regressive.
DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder. < Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia >
Are you going to continue with your foolishness that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Are you serious? How does a flat tax take a larger percentage from anyone? The rate is the same no matter how much you make.
You're the one posting about variable percentages in a thread about the flat tax and you're calling me ignorant. OK, whatever. Show me how the rate varies with a flat tax. I understand that some of you are really into "fairness", if that's what you care about then make that argument but don't try to rewrite etched in stone definitions.
By taxing at a fixed rate, the flat tax takes a disproportional amount from a person earning $10,000 annually compared to a person earning $100,000. With the cost of living at say $7500 annually, the low income earner is left with a meager $83.33 a month for anything else like saving for a new car. With a high earner and the same cost of living of $7500 that yields an surplus for the high earner of $6458.33 a month. The disparity between the two earners is $6375.00 or 7750% each and every month vis-à-vis disposable income. That is why a flat tax is regressive.
Are you shittin' me? You clearly don't read and comprehend very well at all! Here is the very last line from my last post. I'll not write anything else and I'll make the font large enough so you can read it easily!!!! Ready?Who claimed the tax rate varied? Not I or anyone else trying to get through your skull that a flat tax is regressive! You don't like widely accepted definitions, then that's your issue to tilt with the rest of the world, within your majority of ONE or to find other flat earther's with whom to commiserate!I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder. < Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia >
Are you going to continue with your foolishness that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Are you serious? How does a flat tax take a larger percentage from anyone? The rate is the same no matter how much you make.
You're the one posting about variable percentages in a thread about the flat tax and you're calling me ignorant. OK, whatever. Show me how the rate varies with a flat tax. I understand that some of you are really into "fairness", if that's what you care about then make that argument but don't try to rewrite etched in stone definitions.
By taxing at a fixed rate, the flat tax takes a disproportional amount from a person earning $10,000 annually compared to a person earning $100,000. With the cost of living at say $7500 annually, the low income earner is left with a meager $83.33 a month for anything else like saving for a new car. With a high earner and the same cost of living of $7500 that yields an surplus for the high earner of $6458.33 a month. The disparity between the two earners is $6375.00 or 7750% each and every month vis-à-vis disposable income. That is why a flat tax is regressive.
If you're not claiming that the flat tax is regressive then why are you arguing with me?
Are you shittin' me? You clearly don't read and comprehend very well at all! Here is the very last line from my last post. I'll not write anything else and I'll make the font large enough so you can read it easily!!!! Ready?Who claimed the tax rate varied? Not I or anyone else trying to get through your skull that a flat tax is regressive! You don't like widely accepted definitions, then that's your issue to tilt with the rest of the world, within your majority of ONE or to find other flat earther's with whom to commiserate!I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.Are you serious? How does a flat tax take a larger percentage from anyone? The rate is the same no matter how much you make.
You're the one posting about variable percentages in a thread about the flat tax and you're calling me ignorant. OK, whatever. Show me how the rate varies with a flat tax. I understand that some of you are really into "fairness", if that's what you care about then make that argument but don't try to rewrite etched in stone definitions.
By taxing at a fixed rate, the flat tax takes a disproportional amount from a person earning $10,000 annually compared to a person earning $100,000. With the cost of living at say $7500 annually, the low income earner is left with a meager $83.33 a month for anything else like saving for a new car. With a high earner and the same cost of living of $7500 that yields an surplus for the high earner of $6458.33 a month. The disparity between the two earners is $6375.00 or 7750% each and every month vis-à-vis disposable income. That is why a flat tax is regressive.
If you're not claiming that the flat tax is regressive then why are you arguing with me?
"That is why a flat tax is regressive."
No monkey is needed...that would be you acting very simian like! You are the one with reading comprehension and information processing issues. To reject the common definition of a regressive tax, especially after it had been explained to you multiple times by a number of people and still claim the world is wrong and you are the only person with the right of it is profoundly arrogant, stupid and downright ignorant. Enjoy your life in the bubble, Bubba!Are you shittin' me? You clearly don't read and comprehend very well at all! Here is the very last line from my last post. I'll not write anything else and I'll make the font large enough so you can read it easily!!!! Ready?Who claimed the tax rate varied? Not I or anyone else trying to get through your skull that a flat tax is regressive! You don't like widely accepted definitions, then that's your issue to tilt with the rest of the world, within your majority of ONE or to find other flat earther's with whom to commiserate!I figured you'd come back with that bit of ignorance, so I inserted a clarification in the definition to make it understood that the tax was being applied to the gross disposable income.
You're the one posting about variable percentages in a thread about the flat tax and you're calling me ignorant. OK, whatever. Show me how the rate varies with a flat tax. I understand that some of you are really into "fairness", if that's what you care about then make that argument but don't try to rewrite etched in stone definitions.
By taxing at a fixed rate, the flat tax takes a disproportional amount from a person earning $10,000 annually compared to a person earning $100,000. With the cost of living at say $7500 annually, the low income earner is left with a meager $83.33 a month for anything else like saving for a new car. With a high earner and the same cost of living of $7500 that yields an surplus for the high earner of $6458.33 a month. The disparity between the two earners is $6375.00 or 7750% each and every month vis-à-vis disposable income. That is why a flat tax is regressive.
If you're not claiming that the flat tax is regressive then why are you arguing with me?
"That is why a flat tax is regressive."
Are you kidding me? You're kinda dumb, aren't you? I've been saying a flat tax isn't regressive because the rate doesn't change. You came in and called me stupid and then c/p'ed something about regressive taxes and the fact that the percentages change. You could possibly be the first person I've ever run into who is so stupid that communication between us isn't possible. We may need to find a monkey to translate.
Regressive = hurts the poor more, boys. That's not up for debate, just how to deal with that.
It is true, look it up, the link and the logic has been posted.Regressive = hurts the poor more, boys. That's not up for debate, just how to deal with that.
Keep repeating it, maybe someday it'll be true.
That response, in part, goes to your very poor reading comprehension. I never agreed with you, fool, but rather tried to get you to see the truth, which I know now was a waste of fucking time.Yes, a monkey is clearly needed here because only a monkey could hang with someone who insults someone and then posts material agreeing with the person he's insulting.
That response, in part, goes to your very poor reading comprehension. I never agreed with you, fool, but rather tried to get you to see the truth, which I know now was a waste of fucking time.Yes, a monkey is clearly needed here because only a monkey could hang with someone who insults someone and then posts material agreeing with the person he's insulting.
AGAIN!
No monkey is needed...that would be you acting very simian like! You are the one with reading comprehension and information processing issues. To reject the common definition of a regressive tax, especially after it had been explained to you multiple times by a number of people and still claim the world is wrong and you are the only person with the right of it is profoundly arrogant, stupid and downright ignorant. Enjoy your life in the bubble, Bubba!
