Leftist economic ideas are based on the worst human emotions, the UK edition

[Josquius]

They do pay a higher percent of money they would otherwise be free to spend however

[Admiral Yi]

Not of flat income, but they pay a higher % of their disposable income.

Which ("disposable income" aka profit), incidentally, would be the amount on which a typical corporation would pay taxes on. So why should private individuals be treated differently.

A lovely argument, and one that most flat tax proposals I've seen acknowledge by incorporating a (substantial) tax free base.

Still doesn't make a pure flat tax regressive however.  De facto or otherwise.

[Martinus]

Not of flat income, but they pay a higher % of their disposable income.

Which ("disposable income" aka profit), incidentally, would be the amount on which a typical corporation would pay taxes on. So why should private individuals be treated differently.

A lovely argument, and one that most flat tax proposals I've seen acknowledge by incorporating a (substantial) tax free base.

Still doesn't make a pure flat tax regressive however.  De facto or otherwise.

You can't have a flat tax with a tax free base - it then becomes a progressive tax, with two rates (one of which is 0%).

[Sheilbh]

The poor do and would pay a larger proportion of their income on sales tax, VAT, national lottery, and payroll taxes.  Those taxes are regressive.  That doesn't make a flat tax regressive. 

Okay. Unless you are operating a purely theoretical level, or you replace all other parts of a tax system with a single flat tax, then while it may be neutral it enormously aggravates the regressive effects of the system.

Neither does Seedy's penetrating observation that you like the poor more than you like the rich.  Increasing your hatred of the rich will not make a flat tax regressive.

I'm intensely relaxed about people getting rich as long as they don't avoid their taxes.

[The Brain]

Why tie a position to the mast of "flat tax is regressive"? Morans.

[Martinus]

Why tie a position to the mast of "flat tax is regressive"? Morans.

In any case, there is a lot of misunderstanding in those debates, as most of the proponents of the "flat tax" really agree to the tax-free base, which means they are not really for a flat tax, but for a progressive tax with two rates. Once you accept that, I don't think it is such a stretch of imagination to recognise the usefulness of more rungs (if the tax free base is to address basic/biological needs, you put the second rate's cap at the level where non-biological needs, such as cultural or educational, reasonably are satisfied, above which you begin to tax the "luxury" spending).

I think the reason why so many Eastern Europeans are against progressive tax is because the rungs are set very low in this part of Europe, so anyone who is working abroad or for an international company very soon falls into the top rung (while, in practice, at the same level of income in the UK such person would probably be paying the lowest tax or be still in the tax free bracket). This attitude is then transplanted even when one effectively moves abroad (like Tamas). The reason why Tamases hate welfare state or social democracy is because it is so shitty in their own countries.

[DGuller]

A lovely argument, and one that most flat tax proposals I've seen acknowledge by incorporating a (substantial) tax free base.

At which point they become the advocates of the progressive tax proposals. 

[Tamas]

But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around

[Neil]

Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.

None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.

This is basic math people.

This isn't math.  It's politics.

[Admiral Yi]

This isn't math.  It's politics.

This is the Seedy position.

[Razgovory]

Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.

None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.

This is basic math people.

Really?  If one person has to spend their entire monthly income just to make ends meet, and another only spends 5% of their monthly income to make ends meet then it would seem to me that that the first person is spending a higher percentage of their income on a sales tax (which is a flat tax), then the second person.

[Sheilbh]

But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around

As an actual socialist (I've made a little list of industries that should be nationalised) I resent being associated with these vanilla types

[Neil]

This isn't math.  It's politics.

This is the Seedy position.

That's everybody's position.

[Neil]

But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around

As an actual socialist (I've made a little list of industries that should be nationalised) I resent being associated with these vanilla types

Which industries should be nationalized?

[Admiral Yi]

None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.

This is basic math people.

Really?  If one person has to spend their entire monthly income just to make ends meet, and another only spends 5% of their monthly income to make ends meet then it would seem to me that that the first person is spending a higher percentage of their income on a sales tax (which is a flat tax), then the second person.
[/quote]

None of these things mean lower income people pay a higher % of their income under a flat tax. I thought the meaning was clear from context, but if it wasn't I apologize.