On 9/21/2012 12:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.



Does your name have three letters in it? Okay, do we need to discuss it?
We don't. The issue is whether proportional taxes are regressive or not.

They aren't.


Does a system that charges everyone 10% have only one rate? Yeah? No one
is arguing that. The rate is constant but the effect is regressive.

No, by *DEFINITION* the effect is not regressive.