Printable View
Progressive taxes use rates which are proportional to the individuals income in comparisonQuote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Regressive taxes you're proposing are proportional to a number you pulled out of your ass. Flat taxes aren't proportional to anything brosef, that's why it's a flat tax. We don't do flat taxes in this country because they're representative of an economy where the majority of the income is earned by a fraction of a fraction of the population of the country.
Slowly....Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
100.00% - 3.1% = ______
Sometimes people expect too much from you and for that I apologize.
SPOILER: 100% -3.1% = 96.9%
There was no way you were going to get there on your own.. you're welcome.
I think he is saying all the percentages added together don’t equal 100%. All added together, this graph only shows 75.71%. I’d hazard a guess that 24% of taxes come from other means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I hope you're not expecting Seran to understand how things like percentages work...Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Regressive income tax rate looks like: Peasants pay 90% tax rate on income earned, nobility pay 25%, and clergy pay 5%
Progressive income tax rate looks like: Peasants pay 5% tax rate on income earned, nobility pay 25%, and clergy pay 90%
Flat income tax: Everybody pays 25% tax on income earned
The above is using the old French 3 estates for illustrative purposes. Why do you object to every class paying a fair and equal share of their income?
As I said before, I agree with you regressive is bad because it makes slaves out of the lower class. Progressive is also bad because it discourages productivity. That is what you leftists can’t seem to understand… Taxes and subsidies drive behavior. The more you tax something, the less of it you will get. The more you subsidize something the more of it you will get. With a progressive tax system we are discouraging people from upward mobility, which is just UnAmerican if you ask me.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...7u1I/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I read the graph as their actual effective tax rate after deductions. If that is the case, it wouldn’t add up to 100%. It is just showing you the tax rate each segment pays in relation to their income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://files.taxfoundation.org/2023...Data2023_1.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Point out to me what form of math you're using where the sum of 26% + 17.5% + 13.1% + 9.5% + 6.5% = 96.9%. Your citing a bar graph without seemingly understanding it's data.
I literally gave you the exact formula to figure it out... and even gave you the answer because I knew it was well above your 3rd grade level of math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
How precisely does lowering the effective tax rate to a universal flat percentage resolve the issue of income equality? If under the current tax rate a single person earning $50,000 has a tax liability of $4,118, while someone making a straight $100,000,000 would owe $37,000,000, what flat tax do you think you could charge which would end what you deem as 'discouraging people from upward mobility'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I'll give you a hint, when you say someone making $50k owing 25% or $12.5k and someone making 100M owing 25% or $25M the only person who is enjoying upward mobility is not the person making $50k.