4 ms·
Consider the following three taxation systems: A: 20% up to $10k, then 15% up to $100k, then 10% on income above that B: 15% on all income C: 10% up to $10k,
by jefftk 3y ago
Consider the following three taxation systems:
A: 20% up to $10k, then 15% up to $100k, then 10% on income above that
B: 15% on all income
C: 10% up to $10k, then 15% up to $100k, then 20% on income above that
Using the standard terms, A is regressive, B is flat, and C is progressive. But using your terms the "trend goes in the right direction" for all three.
I'm not attached to tire taxes being progressive; my objection here is about diluting the meaning of progressive and regressive.
(My preferred approach here, as in lots of places, is https://www.jefftk.com/p/pricing-benefiting-everyone https://www.jefftk.com/p/pricing-benefiting-everyone : tax the thing without worrying about the tax being regressive, and pair it with a strongly progressive equal-per per-person transfer.)
- jeffbee 3y agoThat's the system I prefer as well! Why are we debating this? I only engage with this argument because bad-faith car addicts often try to block any kind of reform by saying it harms the poor. But as you say on your page, redistributing the revenues of these things per-capita is naturally progressive, and that doesn't need to be means-tested because income taxes are already progressive and the refunds would be income.
- jefftk 3y agoWe're debating this because you countered "Taxes on these things are usually regressive so no thanks" with "VMT is strongly correlated with income, so people with higher incomes would pay more tire taxes" which sounded like you thought it was a claim that the proposed tax would not actually be regressive. (This isn't a disagreement on policy, but me being pedantic about terms.)