Originally posted by no1marauder
Your "holding your breath till you turn blue" strategy is tiresome. The article cited lays waste to your claims in this post.

To repeat just one example (there's a whole chart in the piece itself):

Washington’s sales tax, for example, takes 4.7 percent of the income of low-income households and only 0.8 percent of the inc ...[text shortened]... chest one percent of households, despite the fact that Washington does not tax sales of food.

Only you want people to pay for things in percentage of income.
When I go to the restaurant is my meal 1% of my income? No in real life prices are in dollars, not percents.

Who pays a larger sales tax bill in real dollars? I'll listen to complaints of unfairness when you show me that poor people pay more dollars to the government in sales tax.

Originally posted by quackquack
Only you want people to pay for things in percentage of income.
When I go to the restaurant is my meal 1% of my income? No in real life prices are in dollars, not percents.

Who pays a larger sales tax bill in real dollars? I'll listen to complaints of unfairness when you show me that poor people pay more dollars to the government in sales tax.

No one here wants people to pay for things in a percentage of their income. Silly straw men arguments aren't going to make you save face.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No one here wants people to pay for things in a percentage of their income. Silly straw men arguments aren't going to make you save face.

The government wants for you pay for things in percentages and it is one of the many reasons i believe we should have smaller govenment or at the very least a flat tax.

Originally posted by quackquack
Only you want people to pay for things in percentage of income.
When I go to the restaurant is my meal 1% of my income? No in real life prices are in dollars, not percents.

Who pays a larger sales tax bill in real dollars? I'll listen to complaints of unfairness when you show me that poor people pay more dollars to the government in sales tax.

Two pages ago from you:

You can try to ignore the reality that the tax system is highly progressive system


You now want to ignore the reality that it isn't.

Originally posted by quackquack
The government wants for you pay for things in percentages and it is one of the many reasons i believe we should have smaller govenment or at the very least a flat tax.

The government does not want that either, the government mainly just wants to be re-elected. If you want a flat tax then clearly you need a progressive income tax to compensate for a regressive sales tax? You're being increasingly incoherent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Two pages ago from you:

You can try to ignore the reality that the tax system is highly progressive system


You now want to ignore the reality that it isn't.

When 50% of the country does not pay income tax and when people in certain regision (for example NYC pay more than 50% of their income in fed/ state/ city taxes) it is highly progressive. Nothing about the fact that there are additional taxes such as sales tax changes any of this.

Originally posted by quackquack
When 50% of the country does not pay income tax and when people in certain regision (for example NYC pay more than 50% of their income in fed/ state/ city taxes) it is highly progressive. Nothing about the fact that there are additional taxes such as sales tax changes any of this.

The top nominal tariff in NYC with federal/state/city taxes combined is just over 50%. It's highly unlikely there are any people who end up paying more than 50% of their income in taxes, considering deductions/loopholes etc.

Originally posted by quackquack
When 50% of the country does not pay income tax and when people in certain regision (for example NYC pay more than 50% of their income in fed/ state/ city taxes) it is highly progressive. Nothing about the fact that there are additional taxes such as sales tax changes any of this.

You repeatedly made claims about the "tax system". The "tax system" includes ALL taxes. The evidence shows that the tax system is very mildly progressive and getting less progressive all the time. Therefore, your claims were erroneous.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The government does not want that either, the government mainly just wants to be re-elected. If you want a flat tax then clearly you need a progressive income tax to compensate for a regressive sales tax? You're being increasingly incoherent.

Actually, what we need to do is have the government spend less and not have the government continually expand. According to today's NYT Federal spending in the 2008 fiscal year was $2.9 trillion, and Washington will now spend $3.8 trillion in the fiscal year that ends on Sept. 30. Simply that is an insane increase.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The top nominal tariff in NYC with federal/state/city taxes combined is just over 50%. It's highly unlikely there are any people who end up paying more than 50% of their income in taxes, considering deductions/loopholes etc.

This has been pointed out to him several times in the past, but its a right wing talking point so he is unable to let it go just because it is BS.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You repeatedly made claims about the "tax system". The "tax system" includes ALL taxes. The evidence shows that the tax system is very mildly progressive and getting less progressive all the time. Therefore, your claims were erroneous.

To me there is nothing mild about having to pay 50% of your income taxes to government entities.
The government has passed the point of taxing to the point of being abusive.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The top nominal tariff in NYC with federal/state/city taxes combined is just over 50%. It's highly unlikely there are any people who end up paying more than 50% of their income in taxes, considering deductions/loopholes etc.

So the government allows a deduction here or there -- half the county pays no federal income tax. Surely you'd recognize there are fairness issues.

Originally posted by quackquack
To me there is nothing mild about having to pay 50% of your income taxes to government entities.
The government has passed the point of taxing to the point of being abusive.

Again, NO one pays 50% of their income to government entities.

And for most of the 20th Century, including the Great Prosperity era of circa 1948=1975, the highest marginal income tax rate was far higher than it is now. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

The wealthy have seen their taxes slashed for three decades to the detriment of the US' economy and society as a whole. It's time they paid their fair share AGAIN.

Originally posted by quackquack
To me there is nothing mild about having to pay 50% of your income taxes to government entities.
The government has passed the point of taxing to the point of being abusive.

To be honest, complaining about a top tax rate of 50% shows a distinct lack of historical and international perspective.

http://www2.accaglobal.com/members/publications/accounting_business/CPD/3215423

Younger readers will probably be shocked at the thought that the Government might ask anybody to pay income tax at a rate above 40%. Yet when Harold Wilson was prime minister in the 1960s, a 60% higher rate of tax was the norm, while it was reputedly possible to pay a 98% rate on investment income and, in the right (or possibly wrong) circumstances, a rate in excess of 100%.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
To be honest, complaining about a top tax rate of 50% shows a distinct lack of historical and international perspective.

http://www2.accaglobal.com/members/publications/accounting_business/CPD/3215423

Younger readers will probably be shocked at the thought that the Government might ask anybody to pay income tax at a rate above 40%. Yet when Harold ...[text shortened]... stment income and, in the right (or possibly wrong) circumstances, a rate in excess of 100%.

The problem isn't that the wealthy don't pay enough (and deduction continually rapidly decrease). It is that the government continues to spend like crazy: once again see today NYT Fiscal spending in 2008 was 2.9 trillion
fiscal spending this year 3.8 trillion. That's at 31% increase in a non-inflation time period. We simply need to scale back government because reagardless of how much you tax the increases are simply unsupportable.