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.
Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?
By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol
Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!
.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!
Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however
A flat tax is not regressive-----------it is flat. Everyone pays the same % of their income to the government. A regressive tax would have the poor paying a higher rate than the rich. That is not the case today and would not be the case with a flat tax.
In fact, most flat tax proposals have a zero tax rate up to some minimum income level.
No, he allowed them to expire.More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”
Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it
Thats not true. tax rates have not increased since the Bush tax rates went into effect.
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
One percent of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, 5% of taxpayers pay 60%. that barn is out of the horse, Holmes...
Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.
True that 26% of ALL US taxes, the federal income tax, on that less than $15,000 PER FAMILY!
we are talking about federal income taxes, try to stay on topic.
Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.
True that 26% of ALL US taxes, the federal income tax, on that less than $15,000 PER FAMILY!
Can you translate that sentence into English?
Did you bother reading the linked article? How about wiki?No, he allowed them to expire.More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”
Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it
Thats not true. tax rates have not increased since the Bush tax rates went into effect.
On January 1, 2013, the Bush Tax Cuts expired. However, on January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which reinstated many of the tax cuts, effective retroactively to January 1. The 2012 Act did not repeal the increase in the highest marginal income tax rate (from 35% to 39.6%) which had been imposed on January 1 as a result of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts.]
More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”
Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.
Oh right when Obama wsa blackmailed to keep unemployment going to US after 8 GOP policy when he wanted to up the taxes on the top 2% and instead did it to the top .08%.
Raising anyone's taxes hurts the economy? Weird wasn't that what he right wing Klowns said about Clinton too? lol
So your hero was "blackmailed" ? really? exactly how did that work?
In reality even obama realized that raising taxes would hurt the economy.
The problem we have is not a taxing problem, it is a spending problem. The government spends too much, it spends 40% more than it collects and it borrows the 40% shortfall. Thats why we are 18 trillion in debt.
Until someone in DC has the balls to cut spending and balance the budget, this fiscal mess will only get worse.
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????
8 years of Dubya/GOP governance had US on the edge of the cliff for nearly 5 years?
Did you not understand the question?
here. I'll repost it
Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????
using your "logic" Obama hurt the economy but not raising taxes and confiscating wealth....(Libs are so so so so so fucking stupid)
Obama, Filibuster-proof majority yet denied Americans the Era of Progressive Prosperity that would have come form a 90% Tax Rate and Wealth Confiscation
What a heartless bastage!
No, the definition of a regressive tax is not one that is not progressive and, by DEFINITION it is not possible for a flat tax top tax the middle higher than the rich. By definition.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!
.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!
Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however
A flat tax is not regressive-----------it is flat. Everyone pays the same % of their income to the government. A regressive tax would have the poor paying a higher rate than the rich. That is not the case today and would not be the case with a flat tax.
In fact, most flat tax proposals have a zero tax rate up to some minimum income level.
To be regressive, a tax just needs to be NOT progressive. The FAIR tax has the middle class paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than the "job creators", THUS it's a REGRESSIVE tax, LIKE EVERY "FLAT" TAX PROPOSAL I'VE SEEN FROM THE LOONS ON THE RIGHT!
I didn't say it was your claim red, ya damn fool. That was HIS claim.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.And?
The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.
By definition, they cannot be regressive.
LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?
By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol
Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.
Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!
.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!
Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however
A flat tax is not regressive-----------it is flat. Everyone pays the same % of their income to the government. A regressive tax would have the poor paying a higher rate than the rich. That is not the case today and would not be the case with a flat tax.
In fact, most flat tax proposals have a zero tax rate up to some minimum income level.
To be regressive, a tax just needs to be NOT progressive. The FAIR tax has the middle class paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than the "job creators", THUS it's a REGRESSIVE tax, LIKE EVERY "FLAT" TAX PROPOSAL I'VE SEEN FROM THE LOONS ON THE RIGHT!
More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”
Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.
Oh right when Obama wsa blackmailed to keep unemployment going to US after 8 GOP policy when he wanted to up the taxes on the top 2% and instead did it to the top .08%.
Raising anyone's taxes hurts the economy? Weird wasn't that what he right wing Klowns said about Clinton too? lol
So your hero was "blackmailed" ? really? exactly how did that work?
In reality even obama realized that raising taxes would hurt the economy.
The problem we have is not a taxing problem, it is a spending problem. The government spends too much, it spends 40% more than it collects and it borrows the 40% shortfall. Thats why we are 18 trillion in debt.
Until someone in DC has the balls to cut spending and balance the budget, this fiscal mess will only get worse.
Oh right, you'll choose to stick with 2010 numbers, lol
The US is in debt by $18 trillion BECAUSE Ronnie Reagan gutted taxes on the rich, while increasing taxes on the middle class/poor with his "saving SS" which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, which is almost $3 trillion of the $18 trillion of debt
His tax cuts (along with Dubya's) account for about 60% of current US debt. Ronnie/Dubya's POLICIES (blowing up spending WHILE they had gutted revenues) is responsible for about 90% of current US debt
What do you think happens when Carter/Clinton had US at 20% of GDP in federal revenues but Reagan guts it to 17% (despite his 11 tax increases that fell on the workers) or Dubya guts it to 15% of GDP, Korean war levels?
IT'S A REVENUE PROBLEM DUMBASS!
Obama was blackmailed in Dec 2010. Read a gawddam newspaper!
I didn't say it was your claim red, ya damn fool. That was HIS claim.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?
By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol
Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.
He claims that the rich pay a smaller percentage of tax than the poor and then claims that the current system is 'progressive' and then claims that a flat tax would be regressive (and worse for the poor than the current system).
Those statements CANNOT all be true as they are mutually exclusive.
No, the definition of a regressive tax is not one that is not progressive and, by DEFINITION it is not possible for a flat tax top tax the middle higher than the rich. By definition.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!
.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!
Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however
A flat tax is not regressive-----------it is flat. Everyone pays the same % of their income to the government. A regressive tax would have the poor paying a higher rate than the rich. That is not the case today and would not be the case with a flat tax.
In fact, most flat tax proposals have a zero tax rate up to some minimum income level.
To be regressive, a tax just needs to be NOT progressive. The FAIR tax has the middle class paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than the "job creators", THUS it's a REGRESSIVE tax, LIKE EVERY "FLAT" TAX PROPOSAL I'VE SEEN FROM THE LOONS ON THE RIGHT!
You cannot be this dumb.
I didn't say it was your claim red, ya damn fool. That was HIS claim.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?
By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol
Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.
He claims that the rich pay a smaller percentage of tax than the poor and then claims that the current system is 'progressive' and then claims that a flat tax would be regressive (and worse for the poor than the current system).
Those statements CANNOT all be true as they are mutually exclusive.
Still having trouble understanding what flat means I see. Still making false statements about it. Still trying to interject something in there that we are not talking about.No, the definition of a regressive tax is not one that is not progressive and, by DEFINITION it is not possible for a flat tax top tax the middle higher than the rich. By definition.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!
.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!
Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however
A flat tax is not regressive-----------it is flat. Everyone pays the same % of their income to the government. A regressive tax would have the poor paying a higher rate than the rich. That is not the case today and would not be the case with a flat tax.
In fact, most flat tax proposals have a zero tax rate up to some minimum income level.
To be regressive, a tax just needs to be NOT progressive. The FAIR tax has the middle class paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than the "job creators", THUS it's a REGRESSIVE tax, LIKE EVERY "FLAT" TAX PROPOSAL I'VE SEEN FROM THE LOONS ON THE RIGHT!
You cannot be this dumb.
Ah I get it, READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES?
To be regressive, a tax just needs to be NOT progressive. The FAIR tax has the middle class paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than the "job creators", THUS it's a REGRESSIVE tax, LIKE EVERY "FLAT" TAX PROPOSAL I'VE SEEN FROM THE LOONS ON THE RIGHT!
And hence you have made mutually exclusive statements but demand that they are both true.I didn't say it was your claim red, ya damn fool. That was HIS claim.Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.
They are not.
It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.
Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932
Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.
It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.
The flat tax falls flat for good reasons
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'
That would make you the dumbass.
the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.
He claims that the rich pay a smaller percentage of tax than the poor and then claims that the current system is 'progressive' and then claims that a flat tax would be regressive (and worse for the poor than the current system).
Those statements CANNOT all be true as they are mutually exclusive.
Without false premises, distortions and LIES what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?
MY CLAIM, is the richest of the rich, pay a smaller FEDERAL tax burden than just the rich AND most in the super rich ALSO pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than the middle class!
My OTHER claim is the flat tax IS regressive towards the MIDDLE CLASS (not poor dumbfukk), BUT A BOON TO THE RICH AND SUPER RICH.
You going to TRY to refute ANY of this or just stick with your usual right wing BS Bubs?
