DIYbanter - View Single Post - Tax rates should be returned to their original 1913 levels

George Plimpton

On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:

I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

That's exactly what the idiot, Silver Spoon Smithers, said. He and
other leftists have an ideological fetish about the tax structure, so
much so that they call almost every tax "regressive". They have to play
Humpty-Dumpty with the word "regressive" to try to apply it as they
wish. A proportional tax on income is, by definition, *not* a
regressive tax on income. The definition of a regressive tax is one in
which the tax *rate* decreases as the amount of the tax *base*
increases. Clearly - not possible to dispute - a proportional or flat
tax on income is not regressive.

Here is what Silver Spoon Smithers and *all* leftists mean by
"regressive" tax: one that does not punitively strip the rich of their
wealth. So, imagine a hypothetical progressive tax structure in which
the tax rate increased by one quarter of a percent for each $50,000 in
income:

0 - $50,000 : 0.25%
$50,001 - $100,000 : 0.50%
$100,001 - $150,000 : 0.75%