bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,025
- 280
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?
you insist on making a fool of yourself here leftard. what allows you to make that claim are LOOPHOLES AND DEDUCTIONS the "super-rich" take. All of that would and can be eliminated by a flat tax; but your Democrat Party prefers the current 17,000-page tax code system and opposes the flat tax. so you are running in circles IDIOT, making a circular argument