3 ms·

"At the very least, we should strive for a non-regressive tax system, which is what we have now." I'm super pro regressive taxes. Regressive taxes are fantasti

"At the very least, we should strive for a non-regressive tax system, which is what we have now." I'm super pro regressive taxes. Regressive taxes are fantastic for the poor. They get more than they put in AND the elite are less able to avoid paying them. The socialized promised lands of Scandinavia are highly regressive. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/why-im-soft-on-sales-taxes/?_r=0 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/why-im-soft-on-s...

monochromatic 11y ago
> The socialized promised lands of Scandinavia are highly regressive. No, they aren't. Regressive means that the rich pay less, percentage-wise, than the poor do.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Did you even read the link I gave?
  - zurn 11y ago
    Your link's graph shows that nordic countries have highest social transfers and highest consumption taxes. This means that they are countering the regressive effects of consumption taxes with other income transfers. What the graph doesn't show is that income tax (and many other fees/taxes) are also quite progressive in these countries. So the graph supports Krugman's claim of high consumption taxes in these countries, but not your claim of on "highly regressive" taxation. Krugman's other reference has a broken link but his text does not sound like your claim either. But in the big picture, income transfers do seem to be more favoured in strong welfare states than progression in the tax system. The US has a mongrel system with EITC because you get a "negative income tax" by social criteria (basis of which are quite 1950's...) - it's more like a social transfer in many respects than a tax progression.
brbsix 11y ago
Lets add increased sales tax for all domestic yacht purchases also, it's not like wealthy people can go elsewhere or do other things with their money.
lisper 11y ago
> "if I can trade a somewhat regressive VAT for guarantees of decent retirement and universal health care, I’ll take it" That's a big "if".
seivan 11y ago
Hmm, I always thought that forming an AB would allow you pay less tax. Instead of drawing a salary, you'd just take dividends once a year. Though probably missing something here, but that would let you get away with a lot of money. Or you know, just base in Switzerland. So "the elite are" are certainly avoiding it. Unless by elite you mean the average employee. I might be wrong here, I hope someone will correct it. I am also pro-regressive taxes, but they need to work. Not sure if they can with the mobility or definition of "the elites".
zanny 11y ago
Regressive taxes do not correct the use of money as a tool of political empowerment, though. They cause the problem. Its not about having social safety nets, its about nobody having the wealth to be powerful enough to own government.
- chongli 11y ago
  Sure they would. Just imagine we had a 100% VAT on all goods and services (except essentials such as food). Now imagine you're running ZannyPAC with a fund of $100 million dedicated to the campaign of Joe Sixpack for US president. By law right now you can't just give Joe Sixpack all that money; you have to spend it on his behalf through advertising, venues, promotional materials, etc. Well guess what? For all of those things you'd be stuck paying the 100% VAT; that means $50 million of your fund would be taxed and used to pay for services to help people: health care, child care, parental leave, housing.

monochromatic 11y ago

> The socialized promised lands of Scandinavia are highly regressive. No, they aren't. Regressive means that the rich pay less, percentage-wise, than the poor do.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Did you even read the link I gave?
- zurn 11y ago
  Your link's graph shows that nordic countries have highest social transfers and highest consumption taxes. This means that they are countering the regressive effects of consumption taxes with other income transfers. What the graph doesn't show is that income tax (and many other fees/taxes) are also quite progressive in these countries. So the graph supports Krugman's claim of high consumption taxes in these countries, but not your claim of on "highly regressive" taxation. Krugman's other reference has a broken link but his text does not sound like your claim either. But in the big picture, income transfers do seem to be more favoured in strong welfare states than progression in the tax system. The US has a mongrel system with EITC because you get a "negative income tax" by social criteria (basis of which are quite 1950's...) - it's more like a social transfer in many respects than a tax progression.

brbsix 11y ago

Lets add increased sales tax for all domestic yacht purchases also, it's not like wealthy people can go elsewhere or do other things with their money.

lisper 11y ago

> "if I can trade a somewhat regressive VAT for guarantees of decent retirement and universal health care, I’ll take it" That's a big "if".

seivan 11y ago

Hmm, I always thought that forming an AB would allow you pay less tax. Instead of drawing a salary, you'd just take dividends once a year. Though probably missing something here, but that would let you get away with a lot of money. Or you know, just base in Switzerland. So "the elite are" are certainly avoiding it. Unless by elite you mean the average employee. I might be wrong here, I hope someone will correct it. I am also pro-regressive taxes, but they need to work. Not sure if they can with the mobility or definition of "the elites".

zanny 11y ago

Regressive taxes do not correct the use of money as a tool of political empowerment, though. They cause the problem. Its not about having social safety nets, its about nobody having the wealth to be powerful enough to own government.

chongli 11y ago
Sure they would. Just imagine we had a 100% VAT on all goods and services (except essentials such as food). Now imagine you're running ZannyPAC with a fund of $100 million dedicated to the campaign of Joe Sixpack for US president. By law right now you can't just give Joe Sixpack all that money; you have to spend it on his behalf through advertising, venues, promotional materials, etc. Well guess what? For all of those things you'd be stuck paying the 100% VAT; that means $50 million of your fund would be taxed and used to pay for services to help people: health care, child care, parental leave, housing.