smooth

KMA,

Manx' definition of regressive tax (his example to you) was the definition I learned in my social inequality courses. That's the definition that social scientists use.

A regressive tax is understood to occur when a person's tax liability (as a proportion) decreases as their income increases.

I also double checked various internet definitions to see if there were common parlance usages. I couldn't find any that differed from the 'academic' definition.

Where did you learn your definition? Is it based on what you think regressive means (as in 'unfair') and progressive (as in 'fair')?


I used to speak to an economist when I ran his student lab. He was always talking about how to fix the tax situation in Oregon (it doesn't have a sales tax). He claimed that the best solution was to raise the groce receipt taxes. I can't remember if he was talking about grocery receipt taxes, but I think so.

If I have more time and can remember all the details, I can return and flesh it out. But I'm supposed to be working on my Master's right now!


There is strong historical evidence that capitalists will keep their wealth, not spend it. They need to invest it, first of all, in a capitalist society. Those are the rules of the game in order to keep the pie growing. They have to capitalize their profit. I don't want to remake the wheel, so if you happen to be in a library grab Empire by Hardt and Negri. They do a quick rundown of how this plays out. If you happen to grab that book, the pages are p. 222-228. I'll try to scan them later if I have time.


Also, how I define fairness in taxes is by how much resources one consumes. So I think people should pay taxes on the percentage commensurate with their wealth--not income.

I have posted in another thread explaining how I view the use of resources and infrastructure.

Briefly, workers subsidize the owners, not the other way around. This operates even outside the issue of infrastructure. For example, you asked about a number of things. The government uses public money to support private corporations. We call it subsidies or bailouts. This occurs when they want to do ventures, research drugs or many other technologies, and when they end up stealing from consumers (as was the case with S&L and energy scandals).

What I find interesting is that I have no problem with loaning or incentivizing corporations to research and develop. But once they hit something good, the public coffers should get a percentage of return. Either through straight repayment of capital invested, or via royalties. This is what any private lender does, so I don't see what the issue with that would be.

I would also like to see a particular tax on wealth that would urge reinvestment of the liquid capital. I believe this is the foundation for property taxes, to urge people to use the land productively and not just sit on it. And I don't think our society has a moral or fairness issue with property taxes as long as they aren't putting people out of home. So I think our public would be willing to come to terms on a wealth tax on the same premise.


Philosophically, or theoetically, we should encourage people to invest, but not punish them if they choose to consume. We need consumers to keep the pie of capitalism warm. Taxing on consumption seems to penalize consumers for what we need them to do.

I'm not convinced that we can restructure our tax code to reduce taxes for everyone. Some things I've read make me doubt that to be the case, but mainly I just don't want to risk a shift that large without some positive evidence.

I would consider meeting part-way, however. For example, if we used a self-sufficiency standard instead of the current poverty threshold, I would be amenable to a consumption tax to see how it pans out for temporary. That would mean that in Orange County, you would agree to exempt my first $38,000. That is the researched figure that I would need to meet my basic needs: housing (2 bedroom for a family of 4), food, clothes, transportation, & etc, That amount doesn't allow me to go hog wild out on town. Housing wacks about 24K right off the bat. So you can start thinking to yourself how far the other 14K would get me--especially if you want me to save for my healthcare and retirement each month (and childcare hopefully). Whatever disposable income I have left would be spent on necessities.

All this so I can continue coming in to work each day. And the less stressed I am, the more productive I am liable to be. Given that I create the profit, making compromises like this seems to be in their long-term interests, as well.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman