Sales taxes are not regressive.

[Supposn]

Sales taxes are not particularly regressive; they're not progressive.

Opponent of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion, and higher income earners need not, and generally do not spend their entire incomes for products that would be subject to a general sales tax. Lesser income earners generally must spend a greater proportion of their incomes for necessities.
The wealthy have discretionary income, the poor have little or none.

The expenditures of the wealthy that would not be subject to a general sales tax, are currently items that generally now reduce their taxable incomes. Proportional to their individual revenues, their expenditures that would be subject to a general sales tax are no less, and I suspect exceed the proportions of their revenues subject to our current federal individuals' income taxes.

But for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax.

I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax. FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Its effect is most severe upon the wages of the poor and is of no consequence to individuals' incomes other than wages.

Refer to the thread:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?37379-FICA’s-our-most-regressive-federal-tax

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[archives]

"Sales tax are not regressive"

"Opponent of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion.........for products that would be subject to a general sales tax"

"....for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax"

Confusing, and isn't FICA a benefits received tax?

 

[Celticguy]

Someone show me where in the constitution it calls for progressive taxation. I can point out equal protection...

 

[CFM]

"Sales tax are not regressive"

"Opponent of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion.........for products that would be subject to a general sales tax"

"....for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax"

Confusing, and isn't FICA a benefits received tax?

Those on the lower end of the FICA contributions get a better return on their money than those on the upper end, specifically Social Security. Someone whose contributions are based on an income of $100,000 does not get 4x the distribution as someone whose contributions are based on a $25,000 income.

 

[CFM]

Someone show me where in the constitution it calls for progressive taxation. I can point out equal protection...

To those on the left, equal only applies when benefits are involved not contributions.

 

[Celticguy]

To those on the left, equal only applies when benefits are involved not contributions.

Proving they are against equal rights. Some things never change.

 

[CFM]

Proving they are against equal rights. Some things never change.

On every issue.

 

[Celticguy]

On every issue.

Yes. Regardless of which right it is, equal is not part of the picture.

 

[Celticguy]

On every issue.

Yes. Regardless of which right it is, equal is not part of the picture.

 

[Supposn]

"Sales tax are not regressive"

"Opponent of general sales taxes correctly point out that lesser income earners must spend a greater proportion.........for products that would be subject to a general sales tax"

"....for those that do not pay income taxes, a general sales tax would be a regressive tax"

Confusing, and isn't FICA a benefits received tax?

Archives, you confuse yourself by considering only parts of sentences, rather than considering the entire sentences.
You've invented your own terminology, a “benefits received tax”. That's OK as long as we have a mutual understanding of the term's meaning.

Yes, employees pay FICA and SECA taxes and are eligible for benefits that are funded by those taxes. But everyone doesn't pay their own way. Poorer employees will eventually receive much greater benefits than other employees proportional to the gaxes they paid. Employees alone could not fund their entire benefits.

Social Security reduce incidences and extents of family poverty. They are of net economic and social benefit to our nation. Although retired employees are the direct beneficiaries of social security retirement benefits, the programs are of net economic and social benefit to our entire nation. It is not unreasonable that everyone contribute to these programs.

Within this discussion thread I'm not criticizing the administration of the benefit programs, but I find fault with our manner of funding those benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn