How Progressive is the Tax System?

[Toro]

The research from Citizens for Tax Justice — a liberal organization that advocates “fair taxes for middle- and low-income families” — uses 2008 data for all federal, state and local taxes combined. It found that the average effective tax rate is 29.8 percent, and that including state and local taxes makes the tax curve look much less steep:

The group also finds that in 2008 the share of total federal, state and local taxes paid by each income group was relatively close to the share of income that that group brings in, at least as compared to comparable 2006 numbers for effective federal tax rates:

Just How Progressive Is the Tax System? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[neurosport]

conservatives are idiots

otherwise they would count total tax per individual and not % of income

a flat tax is not even flat enough

a really flat tax is when every person pays same amount

so lets say every person pays $10,000 a year in taxes

and if you can't pay that much - you get sterilized

it immediately solves the illegal immigration problem as well - any mexican that wants to pay $10,000 a year in taxes is free to enter !

 

[mash107]

conservatives are idiots

otherwise they would count total tax per individual and not % of income

a flat tax is not even flat enough

a really flat tax is when every person pays same amount

so lets say every person pays $10,000 a year in taxes

and if you can't pay that much - you get sterilized

it immediately solves the illegal immigration problem as well - any mexican that wants to pay $10,000 a year in taxes is free to enter !

The Flat Tax is much more progressive than this system, as evidence shows.

But I support a flat tax of 0%!

 

[Iriemon]

It would be interesting to see how those curves compared to 10 and 20 and 30 years ago.

 

[neurosport]

I support a flat tax of 0%!

that's a separate argument.

my point is that our "progressive" tax is really PROGRESSIVE SQUARED.

and what people would consider flat is in fact already progressive.

a truly flat tax would be something like a gym membership. for example i pay $70 per month for NYSC membership. some people park their Porsches in front of the gym, some park their bicycles and some come on the bus. but we all pay the same $70 per month.

THAT IS A FLAT TAX !

now we all get the same protection from police, fire department and all drive on the same roads - we should all pay the same amount for these service from our government.

the taxes that we have now are motivated by one thing only - INSATIABLE GREED. the system is designed to drain everybody of as much money as they can possibly contribute. and people only tolerate it because they have no choice. if the guy with a Ferrari suddenly had to pay $500 per month for gym membership he would simply switch to Gold's gym.

 

[mash107]

I support a flat tax of 0%!

that's a separate argument.

my point is that our "progressive" tax is really PROGRESSIVE SQUARED.

and what people would consider flat is in fact already progressive.

a truly flat tax would be something like a gym membership. for example i pay $70 per month for NYSC membership. some people park their Porsches in front of the gym, some park their bicycles and some come on the bus. but we all pay the same $70 per month.

THAT IS A FLAT TAX !

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

But the Flat Tax (sponsored by Forbes) is fixed at 17% (much lower than the charts above), and huge deductions for those with children. In other words, families making less than ~$45k with children don't pay taxes. Much better and more progressive than what we have, of course, but income tax is still tantamount to forced labor. I'd rather have sales and property tax take care of funding a much smaller sized government.

 

[neurosport]

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

well that person can move to Africa or Mexico and is encouraged to do so !

 

[Iriemon]

I support a flat tax of 0%!

that's a separate argument.

my point is that our "progressive" tax is really PROGRESSIVE SQUARED.

and what people would consider flat is in fact already progressive.

a truly flat tax would be something like a gym membership. for example i pay $70 per month for NYSC membership. some people park their Porsches in front of the gym, some park their bicycles and some come on the bus. but we all pay the same $70 per month.

THAT IS A FLAT TAX !

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

But the Flat Tax (sponsored by Forbes) is fixed at 17% (much lower than the charts above), and huge deductions for those with children. In other words, families making less than ~$45k with children don't pay taxes. Much better and more progressive than what we have, of course, but income tax is still tantamount to forced labor. I'd rather have sales and property tax take care of funding a much smaller sized government.

A pure flat tax would have to be about ~25% because the is what the Govt spends proportionate to gross income. If you provide for generous deductions the rate goes up.

You could make progressive rates lower too by presupposing a dramatic reduction in government revenues.

 

[Iriemon]

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

well that person can move to Africa or Mexico and is encouraged to do so !

Who'd clean your house?

 

[mash107]

that's a separate argument.

my point is that our "progressive" tax is really PROGRESSIVE SQUARED.

and what people would consider flat is in fact already progressive.

a truly flat tax would be something like a gym membership. for example i pay $70 per month for NYSC membership. some people park their Porsches in front of the gym, some park their bicycles and some come on the bus. but we all pay the same $70 per month.

THAT IS A FLAT TAX !

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

But the Flat Tax (sponsored by Forbes) is fixed at 17% (much lower than the charts above), and huge deductions for those with children. In other words, families making less than ~$45k with children don't pay taxes. Much better and more progressive than what we have, of course, but income tax is still tantamount to forced labor. I'd rather have sales and property tax take care of funding a much smaller sized government.

A pure flat tax would have to be about ~25% because the is what the Govt spends proportionate to gross income. If you provide for generous deductions the rate goes up.

You could make progressive rates lower too by presupposing a dramatic reduction in government revenues.

If our weakened economy that Bush gave us hasn't made it apparent already, government spends way too damn much!

You should scale spending down to a 0% tax rate (-$700B).

And then run a surplus to pay off debt and ensure Social Security solvency (-~$500B).

That would still leave $2T or so for government to spend (which is still unconstitutional) at their discretion. We don't need a $900B warfare department or $800B welfare department. Education shouldn't, under our constitution, be handled at all by the federal government, too.

 

[Iriemon]

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

But the Flat Tax (sponsored by Forbes) is fixed at 17% (much lower than the charts above), and huge deductions for those with children. In other words, families making less than ~$45k with children don't pay taxes. Much better and more progressive than what we have, of course, but income tax is still tantamount to forced labor. I'd rather have sales and property tax take care of funding a much smaller sized government.

A pure flat tax would have to be about ~25% because the is what the Govt spends proportionate to gross income. If you provide for generous deductions the rate goes up.

You could make progressive rates lower too by presupposing a dramatic reduction in government revenues.

If our weakened economy that Bush gave us hasn't made it apparent already, government spends way too damn much!

You should scale spending down to a 0% tax rate (-$700B).

And then run a surplus to pay off debt and ensure Social Security solvency (-~$500B).

That would still leave $2T or so for government to spend (which is still unconstitutional) at their discretion. We don't need a $900B warfare department or $800B welfare department. Education shouldn't, under our constitution, be handled at all by the federal government, too.

Perhaps; but you can't compare one tax system over another based on inconsistent presumptions as to revenues that they will produce.

 

[neurosport]

That's absurd for someone that doesn't make $70 a month.

well that person can move to Africa or Mexico and is encouraged to do so !

Who'd clean your house?

good question actually ...

hard to say.

the market would figure something out ...

 

[mash107]

A pure flat tax would have to be about ~25% because the is what the Govt spends proportionate to gross income. If you provide for generous deductions the rate goes up.

You could make progressive rates lower too by presupposing a dramatic reduction in government revenues.

If our weakened economy that Bush gave us hasn't made it apparent already, government spends way too damn much!

You should scale spending down to a 0% tax rate (-$700B).

And then run a surplus to pay off debt and ensure Social Security solvency (-~$500B).

That would still leave $2T or so for government to spend (which is still unconstitutional) at their discretion. We don't need a $900B warfare department or $800B welfare department. Education shouldn't, under our constitution, be handled at all by the federal government, too.

Perhaps; but you can't compare one tax system over another based on inconsistent presumptions as to revenues that they will produce.

Well, if we're talking about progressiveness, or the burden placed on poor, then Forbes' flat tax would not tax a cent of income under $36,000 and be significantly better than our current system. Government should be able to scale down spending to revenues coming in, and not vice versa. No need to make people suffer because they're unwilling to.

Obviously no taxes doesn't cause one American to be treated any different than another, and is ideal.

 

[Iriemon]

If our weakened economy that Bush gave us hasn't made it apparent already, government spends way too damn much!

You should scale spending down to a 0% tax rate (-$700B).

And then run a surplus to pay off debt and ensure Social Security solvency (-~$500B).

That would still leave $2T or so for government to spend (which is still unconstitutional) at their discretion. We don't need a $900B warfare department or $800B welfare department. Education shouldn't, under our constitution, be handled at all by the federal government, too.

Perhaps; but you can't compare one tax system over another based on inconsistent presumptions as to revenues that they will produce.

Well, if we're talking about progressiveness, or the burden placed on poor, then Forbes' flat tax would not tax a cent of income under $36,000 and be significantly better than our current system. Government should be able to scale down spending to revenues coming in, and not vice versa. No need to make people suffer because they're unwilling to.

Obviously no taxes doesn't cause one American to be treated any different than another, and is ideal.

I agree our current system is not very progressive and needs an overhaul.