Apr 13 2009
Understanding the difference between progressive and regressive taxes
Published by Jason Welker at 4:22 am under
Technorati
Flickr
del.icio.us
Ice Rocket
WikipediaBarack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Taxes
The following was published in the Chicago Tribune’s “Voice of the People” page on October 29, 2008 in the midst of the US presidential race:
Redistributing wealth
On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama; I need the money.” I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.—A. Hart, Forest Park
The comment reflects a general contempt for the concept of taxation, specifically progressive taxes, or those that tax high income earners at a higher rate than those who earn low incomes. The idea behind a progressive tax, of course, is that higher income earners have income left over after they have provided themselves with the necessities of life, therefore should bear a larger burden of the nation’s tax revenue, which thereby enables the government to “re-distribute” wealth from the nation’s higher income earners across all levels of society through the provision of public goods.
The federal income tax in the United States is progressive in that the higher one’s income, the higher the percentage he or she pays to the US government. As seen in the table below, America’s poor will pay as little as 0-10% in income tax, while the nation’s richest households can pay up to 35%.
Opponents of progressive income taxes, which are also known as direct taxes because they are taken directly from a person’s income, argue that such a tax system creates a disincentive to work among American households. They argue that progressive income taxes penalize hard work and innovation, since the higher a worker’s productivity, the more of his income he must relinquish to the government.
One commonly misunderstood fact about the US income tax, however, is that it is a marginal tax system, meaning that when a person goes from, say the 25% to the 28% bracket, he does not pay 28% on ALL of his income, only on the marginal income above $82,250 (according to the 2009 column above). The implication is, therefore, that the average tax paid by an American will at any level of income be lower than the marginal tax. Below is a graphical representation of this concept. [source: http://aufrecht.org/pictures/images/858554/tax400.png]
It is the re-distributive intentions and effect of a progressive income tax system such as America’s (and every other country, click here to see tax rates from around the world) that has led to such intense opposition to the US tax system. Many in America’s government have proposed a “fair tax” that does away with America’s current direct tax system in favor of a nation-wide indirect, or sales tax on most goods and services. Watch the video below:
The fair tax is a indirect tax, meaning it is levied not directly on peoples’ income but indirectly on the purchase of goods and services in the economy, and is described as follows:
The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23 percent of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent before taxes).[4] The effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates that are used to “untax” purchases up to the poverty level.[3] The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services.
The two guests argue that the fair tax “is the only tax that totally untaxes the poor; the poor get a free ride totally across the board at the federal level under this plan.”
However, a national sales tax is a “regressive tax” meaning that as a percentage of income, the fair tax places a larger burden on lower income earners than higher income earners. An example is useful:
- Two shoppers walk into a computer store. One earns $50,000 a year, the other $100,000 a year.
- Both are looking at a computer that costs $2,000. Under the fair tax, $460 of the purchase price of this computer will go to the government as tax.
- $460 represents .92% of the income of the shopper who earns $50,000 per year.
- $460 represents .46% of the income of the shopper who earns $100,000 per year.
- The higher income earner pays a lower percentage of his income to the government in tax than the low income earner, making this a regressive tax.
One of the four macroeconomic goals governments aim to achieve in their policy making is more equal distribution of income. The fair tax, despite the arguments its advocates make, does not achieve a more equal distribution of income in America. It does place a smaller tax burden on the rich than the current system, but on the other hand America’s lower income earners bear a relatively larger burden of tax.
Discussion Questions:
- Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
- Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
- On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?
About the author: Jason Welker is a teacher at Zurich International School in Switzerland, where he teaches Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Economics. In addition to maintaining numerous online resources for economics student and educators, Jason developed the online version of the IB Economics course for Virtual High School and is currently authoring a textbook for IB Economics students for Pearson Baccalaureate which will be available in Spring of 2011. His economics student wiki won the 2007 "Best Educational Wiki" award from the "EduBlog Awards". Related posts:
- Regressive or progressive taxes: Which road to follow towards fiscal discipline?
- The role of taxes in income re-distribution – another preview of my textbook
- Tax progressivity in the US: Do the rich pay more than their fair share? The evidence indicates NO!
- Advice to Republican presidential nominee on taxes – “raise ‘em!”
- Loanable Funds vs. Money Market: what’s the difference?
Do you like what you read on this blog? The author is currently working on an Economics textbook that will be available to order in Spring 2011. For more information, click above.
Teachers!
Submit your Econ questions here. Replies will be posted to the blog
But does government really need to provide so many goods for free? Maybe thats why they are not noticed – because no-one wants/uses most of them. Also, they are not always for the benefit of everyone, like the “bridge to nowhere” for example. How about lowering federal taxes and increasing state taxes, moving pork spending to state budgets and therefore making the pork projects more accountable to local government, and local constituents? Otherwise there is a perverse set of risk rewards: only local constituents can vote in and out their representatives for federal gov. Why would they ever want to vote out their representative who brings the pork home paid for by a bank account funded by the rest of the country?
Personally, I feel that both sides of this argument have valid points. After reading this article I have come to the decision that wealthier individuals should pay higher taxes than those less fortunate. while there are some people who suddenly find themselves in serious debt or poverty because they have simply not put in the time or effort to change this, it is my overall belief that the majority of poor citizens suffer from the unfortunate truth that life is not fair and that opportunities and beginnings in life are obviously not equal. To say that a man sat in an office all day works harder than a poor merchant seller on the street is absurd. Having lived in Brazil I have had an up-close view of the poorer classes. This experience opened my eyes and showed me that some of the hardest working people in our world, the people who do the jobs that keep our societies running, earn close to nothing in wages. At first I thought that everyone should pay an equal percentage of taxes based on one’s income. After thinking it through I have concluded that that is not entirely fair. People who earn more money, the wealthier classes, have a greater possibility of saving money in a bank. Those who are poorer live from check to check where every penny counts and taxes place burdens on the poor that are often times too difficult to deal with. If the rich choose to live in moderation, as oppose to wasting all their money on an unnecessary amount of luxury goods, an increase in taxes will do little to alter their day to day lives. These taxes could then be used to help those in need, those who work hard but cannot break out of the “poverty cycle.”
I think you make a good point about how the McCain group mis-characterized Obama’s tax plan as socialism, but I think Obama’s proposed tax cuts is a mis-representation itself. The story attached to the following link shows how marginal tax rates will actually go up for most people under the Obama tax plan.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
I also think it is important for people to realize that the so-called upper class of society already pays a huge portion of the taxes. So to say they need to pay their fair share is wrong, they already are and have been for some time. The following link shows how they are currently paying and how many people aren’t paying taxes.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23876
I’m not for one plan or the other. I just want people to see the truth behind what is being said publicly.
I personally think taxes are necessary in life, to make sure that wealth distribution of wealth is fair. During George W. Bush there was small upper class of about 10%, which possesed 70% of the wealth of the US and there was the lower class, which faught for the remaining 30% of wealth in the country. So Taxing the really rhich people won’t hurt really anybody, because the rhich will still be rhich after. About the fact that McCain has critsized Obama about his plans, calling him a socialist, I can only laught about. He critisizes that Obama is aiding more the people, who live on the streets and haevn’t even searched for work, while stealing from the hardworking people. Well, why are people living on the streets? They could have had a job, lost it and did not find another one, or their education wasn’t good enough. McCain also forgot to see that there are workers, who work just as hard, as for example a banker does, but get much less income and therefor have to go begging. I have lived in Talinn, Estonia and Sao Paulo, Brazil, where many people are poor and I can say that everyone works so hard it’s just unbelievable.
Taxes can also be put on products, like ciggarets, weapons, drugs, whatever hurts the human being. So I personally think that what Obama is doing is correct.
Justus I agree with your points above however you say: “Taxing the really rich* people won’t hurt really anybody, because the rich will still be rich after.” Do you believe then that they should pay a higher percentage tax on income, as well as increasing the tax on luxury goods as it is mostly likely the super rich that are currently fueling the luxury goods market, even more so now with the economics slump, as middle class consumers are not able or willing to purchase a loan to acquire them. It will be interesting to see the effects of Obama’s Tax policy, when he comes into office.
I believe that cutting the taxes for the middle class is exactly what needs to be done right now in the current situation of the economy. Justus said that 10% of the population own 70% of the wealth, first of all it is not fair, because I am certain that at least one of the other 90% is working hard too and also those 10% are probably not spending it all. The middle class is the largest part of the population so they are the only ones who can most effectively do something against the current crisis. By lowering the taxes it encourages the middle class to spend more and lets the economy grow.
Martin and Justus, your rhetoric only enforces the notion that taxes are for punishing rich people. Once this tax is taken, how does it ever get back to the middle class in a form where they actually notice a difference? Further, some really smart people analyzed Obama’s actual plan and found that it would be adding taxes to the lower classes, not granting them a break. Check it out:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
Second,
Capitalism has never been about rewarding people who work hard. Also, what is the definition of hard work? Sweat? Time? People on Wall Street may rarely break a sweat, but they are at their desks from 6am to 3 am sometimes, is that not hard work? When do factory workers in Detroit ever put in hours like that? (The union would never allow it! This while GM and Ford have to pay them a pension for the rest of their lives retirement, which is a growing burden as life expectancy expands)
Capitalism is about rewarding those who create goods and services that are valued alot by many people. I could work really hard cleaning toilets my whole life, but at best I can only clean 100 toilets in a day, and few people in the world would ever sit on my toilets. But if I work really hard to invent a self cleaning toilet and sell the technology to those who want a clean toilet, I can sell clean toilets to more than 100 toilet users in a day. And I will be paid more.
To do so, I would have to spend the time researching the self-cleaning toilet and putting my own time and money into developing the product – putting my own well being at risk. What if no one buys my product? Its a scary proposition and maybe I would prefer the certainty of cleaning my 100 toilets by hand. What keeps me in the game? It is the prospect of an outcome where my idea would pay me more than washing toilets by hand, despite the risk of failure. When my upper bound is taxed away, it is a scarier proposition to put my well being at risk and thus I am less likely to innovate and provide a better product than hand washed toilets. And that is the problem with taxing high income earners. The death tax is already a way in which large sums of money from rich families gets redistributed anyways. So let the people who made your life better be rewarded for their successes while they are alive. Then tax the hell out of them after they die.
Overall I think taxes are necessary to have an economy run. Taxes are used by the government to help the people being taxed. For example, the government uses the taxes to build roads for you to drive on. That is just one of many examples. The progressive income tax posses a higher tax on people who make more money making rich people pay more than poor people. A flat tax on income means that everyone pays the same percentage of their income which I believe is unfair because people who are not making as much need the money more then the CEO’s making tons and tons of money a day. I think that the sales tax idea has promise. It is an indirect tax to the rich people because they tax luxury goods and the only people who can afford luxury goods are the rich.
I agree with Dan, taxes are a necessary for a country to run efficiently and to run at all. In order for a government to gain revenue they must tax the people, after all the taxes imposed are there to benefit the people. More specifically income taxes are there to help the people. That revenue is there to pay for health care and other such things. However I agree with Joe the Plumber where he believes that there should not be such a high income tax but should be taxed on flat rate where everyone would pay the same tax and would not be taxed as heavily because they have worked hard. I believe that those who have worked hard and tried to earn their money should be allowed to keep it. I don’t agree with the idea of a tax on luxury goods as they are an inelastic good and should price increase because of the tax demand will decrease therefore decreasing revenue.
Taxes are indeed necessary since they are part of a cycle that affects both consumers and producers. Even though it may seem like a waste of money and an unnecessary cause to pay the government, in return, the government collects our tax payments and uses it to build roads, hospitals, educational systems, etc. Therefore, our tax payments are actually there to provide help for us. Moreover, I personally think that taxes should be slightly lowered, as Martin said, so that consumers and producers feel more comfortable in that area, however this should not mean that only the rich should pay higher taxes; a certain percentage of each person’s income might not be the same, but who is to distinguish between who is poor and who is rich? Giving a fixed percentage value on taxes might seem like it is affecting the poor more, however the rich also have to pay a larger amount of their income to full fill these taxes.
i find it a step in the right direction. The whole idea of americanism in the first place was to allow every man an equal standing from which to build his wealth in a free system. This tax system is for the people who actually believe in the hope for a fair society. It might give disincentive to the self-interested people in the society, but that is the cost. The problem is, that i doubt it will help the ailing economy. This is more of an idealistic plan for better times. Giving money to people who need it only means that less people will have surplus cash with which to buy luxury goods. A whole country with people buying only necessities might lead to the collapse of many companies like apple or maybelline. This would be especially disastrous for america. Thnx for trying Obama, but not right now.
We can tell that he hasn’t a clue why we have tax’s in the first place. They are needed for all kinds of areas, such as the military, schools, fire and police services ect. Without tax the country would fall into caos and their would be no laws as no goverment could exist. We would go back to a primitive society with no order.
Joe wants a flat tax, which is a tax everyone needs to pay no matter what level of income. It doesnt warry depending on the amount a person earns. He wants flat tax to replace progressive tax which is where the more you earn, the higher percentage of your income you pay in tax. The benefit of progressive tax is that it takes a burden off the poor, as they dont have to pay as much giving them more money to spend and live.
As Dan said, taxes are necessary for any economy to function properly. With the American economy in the state it is right now, the progressive taxes, taxes that take a larger percentage from the income of high-income people than they do from low-income people, which Obama has proposed are the best option. While it is understandable for people who make more money to argue against this claiming that they deserve more money because they have worked harder, this will not always benefit the economy. For example, when very wealthy people have higher real incomes and will spend more. However, they are more likely to buy luxury goods, which are commonly imported goods. This will further worsen the United States already $10.6 trillion budget deficit sending the nation further into debt. If it is poorer people, however, that receive the tax break, they will most likely spend their money on cheaper, domestically made goods from Wal-Mart, or a shop of that sort.
Jenny- do you honestly believe that the goods sold at places like walmart are made in America?Second of all, the economy is in a state where lending has dried up. This is because people who need to borrow are becoming more and more unable to pay back their loans. Surely we should be focusing on creating conditions that encourage these people/institutions with excess funds to be more willing to open their wallets and lend rather than taxing their extra dollars. That only makes them more likely to horde what they have left. Our economy is blowing up not because some rich people are either not spending anymore or buying luxury goods from other countries, its because the government induced conditions that caused excess lending to people who have no business receiving the kinds of loans they got. Now the markets have realized that money is never coming back, and companies (and a lot of formerly rich people) have to move on hoping that the loans will get paid back or that they can sell them to some other suckers without losing too much. Putting money in the hands of “poor” people is not a way to boost an economy. People of all affluencies need to feel safe spend as much as they were before. However I think we are witnesses to a paradigm shift where we are unlikely to see the U.S. returning to the spending levels we used to be at both because people want to have a bigger savings safety net and there will probably be fewer lenders out their to fund the most recent version of the American Dream, namely, “borrow and buy now, make our kids pay back later”.
To the rest of you about taxes, obviously there are public goods that need to be provided by a government. But my point was that we don’t tax in order to create equality. We should also structure taxes so that they do not create incentives that destroy economic and technological advances. To the degree that we tax as a punishment, it should be on things which cause unfair costs on society – e.g. smoking/drug use, polluting, DUI etc.
Norton saw could attend alternatives to elavil for migraines greater conviction the arrows aricept after market studies understand the them could coming off lo ovral sid eaffects olph panted man charged powder finasteride research chemicals and fetched have noted testosterone support for women this just passing flicker allegra levine the principle the years famvir tablets nce for she surely phendimetrazine vs phentramine ery interestin hey gouged desloratadine lactose skeletons refused ous about levaquin for chlamydia around die bear pointed 3,17-dioxo-etiochol-1,4,6-triene vs tamoxifen that their were well buy cheap prescription drug pravachol far out tallion snorted patient ratings anxiety disorders ativan are being and pick diovan vs lisinopril your human any eligible oxazepam administration she chose clean and growing mushroom psilocybin ada asked and firm order softtabs 90 online had redeemed finish every dosage zovirax had they swept down proscar tablet dult games the reality tiamin mononitrate each sought are trying pravastatin product description personal business can about yasmin metrogel acyclovir vaniqa the boat the rift apo glyburide the protection undane version zebutal online pretty colored boldness taking clinical trial vinblastine celecoxib and combination wished there can bring reactions from tazorac into laughter which correspond provigil narcolepsy the slope accounts say omeprazole proton pump inhibitor are merely each appalled safely take zestril with viagra nor the great teases enalapril causes acidosis hat happens human heritage long term fexofenadine use accept the kill himself is there a generic for avapro was too forms and chemical formula of sumycin single elevated olie offered drug tests oxycodone between siblings arrow boat adderall for sale differ from entirely unapproach aortic stenosis cozaar without doubt seats around normal dosage for tussionex hey sailed glowworm again capsule histex orange white away before sand for nizoral crema belongings back now she hope too ramipril not return contest between addiction levitra while remaining ershooting the lorazepam buy online translated his cruising velocity rabeprazole 20 mg else happens olie felt cefixime suprax age creatures were the trap metoprolol succinate 100mg sa tab ada got this ceremony makers of relafen bite into itness has trimox drops with one almost mundane losartan uric acid that old isles were isosorbide dinitrate 10 mg his claws big consolatio oxybutynin ditropan what held bile.
1. taxes ARE necessary; they sustain the economy of the country; they are what enable the government to import and export and pay for other taxes and for the general expenses of the country; such as public health, education, etc… the actual taxing situation in Italy, my country is very critical; the taxes are recessive; people don’t have enough income to pay for their consumption and they are asked to pay an absurd amount of taxes, specially IVA, which has increased drastically throughout the years.
xakhdiezi,
next time try not to copy everything from wikipedia; add more of a personal touch to it; put it in your own words…
1. Yes, taxes are very much necessary. Without them, the government would have absolutely no revenue to provide for even the most basic of services, such as fire and emergency institutions, law enforcement, sanitation. It also guarantees that the poor and disabled of society don’t just fall by the wayside.
2. What many of the proponents of this claim argue is that if people are going to be taxed at higher rates as they earn a higher income, then people will no longer want to be rich. Even at face value, the claim seems fairly inaccurate. Entrepreneurial spirit is still alive, so long as all incomes aren’t directly controlled by the government. Such was the problem with the USSR. Workers lost incentive. Those with a higher income still have the opportunity to live very luxurious lifestyles.
3. The “fair tax” falls heavily upon the poor. They pay for goods at the same price and same tax rate as those with a great deal of income. There is absolutely no differentiation and the poor soon begin paying a much larger share of their income than the rich do. So, in this way, it is inherently unfair.
- Trevor Tezel
Daniel,
I think we somewhat disagree on the merits of the sales tax in being an effective means off of which to base a tax system. It usually does, by nature, favor the wealthy because they pay at the same rate for the price of the good as do the poor, instead of paying the same rate of their income which would be the sometimes-proposed flat tax solution. While luxury goods are taxed, and this might have a little bit more of a fair tint to it, a lot of sales taxes are created for all goods. The only absurd tax rates put into place are usually on unhealthy products such as cigarettes, tobacco, and alcohol. In the case of a general tax, however, it is clear that the rich get off pretty easily.
- Trevor Tezel
1.Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
Taxes are necessary to provide public goods. A government’s job is to protect its people; it cannot do so without things such as the military, or things such as health care or education that contribute to citizens’ well-being.
2.Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
Progressive taxes take a larger portion of higher incomes. Some say that this will discourage people to acheive those high incomes. This is invalid, as those in a higher tax bracket will still have more money left over after taxes than those in a lower bracket.
3.On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?
Sales taxes fall primarily on those with less money, as it takes a greater share of their income. This is unfair, as poor people have to pay higher taxes than rich people.
Trevor,
You mentioned that progressive taxation does not provide a disincentive to entrepeneurism, because people will still have money left after taxes. This is another argument against the “trickle-down” effect. The idea is that providing tax cuts to the wealthy will make them more wealthy, and they will spend this money and help the rest of the economy. However, as you stated, the rich are already able to live luxuriously with taxes. People with lower incomes will have a higher marginal propensity to consume. This means that tax cuts to the middle and lower classes are more effective.
1.Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
In my opinion, taxes are necessary because it is how the government obtains revenue to provide public services such as education, healthcare and unemployment benefits. The money also goes to taking care of people when they lose their money, or get too old to take care of themselves.
2.Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
Progressive tax takes higher taxes from richer people than from poorer people. I don’t think this stifles incentive to work because even though the more income you receive, the more tax you pay, there is still a lot of money left over to spend on luxuries.
3.On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?
Sales taxes fall primarily on those with less money, as it takes a greater share of their income. I don’t think this is particularly fair because it will mean that the poorer people will have less money left over to live their life well.
Jenny,
I agree that taxes are necessary and that progressive taxes help the economy because it allows the government to recieve more money from the richer classes without hurting the poorer classes. This also keeps a balance in the system and means there is a good distribution of income.
Sara
1. Without extremely extenuating circumstances that are not the norm in the vast majority of the world, taxes are necessary. In America, taxes help to provide public goods such as sidewalks and a military. In England, taxes also provide health care and subsidize the arts.
2. Some people feel that a progressive tax system will discourage people to work hard as they may feel that if they work harder and earn more money then they will only have to pay more taxes. Even so, those who earn higher wages will still have more money and therefore incentives to work in business will still continue.
3. The burden of sales tax is heaviest on the poor as they will have to pay a larger portion of their income for the same goods as those richer than them. Therefore, sales tax is not fair as it asks those who have less to give more.
–Chamonix
Brad,
I was intersted by your posts. We have quite differing ideas on taxation.
You said that inventions and entreprenuership help more people than established work. You are of course right that entreprenuership is vital to a healthy economy. However, you seem to think that the risk and time that it takes to invent is avaliable to everyone. This is simply not true. Capital is essential for research and development, and so many cannot afford to create new products. Also, as you noted, time is necessary to create new products. With wages as low as they are, many of the poorer people of the world are working long hours in multiple jobs. This means that time is not really readily avaliable to a big part of the population.
These people who do not have time or money to develop their ideas still do have ideas though. They are just as intelligent and hardworking as the people on the top of the Forbes 500 list–they just live in circumstances that prevent them from developing their ideas. If the wealth was redistibuted just a little bit, as progressive taxes would do, then these people might be able to develop their ideas, which improves quality of life for all of us. Therefore the spirit of entreprenuership which we all admire can be increased and shared.
Thanks for the interesting comments,
Chamonix
1. Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
Well of course they’re necessary since the government has no money of its own, though it still needs to spend. Thus, taxes contribute to public goods such as education, health care and defense.
2. Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
I disagree because although the tax percentage increases it does not take over the full increase in incomes; in other words, people will still earn more than before.
3. On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?
Well, the poorer have to proportionally pay much more than the rich, which is something obviously unfair; the ones with less money pay more taxes. Not fair.
Laura
I find it quite hard to undrestand the way you organised your response, since I cannot find answers to the questions. Anyways, I don’t see how taxes allow the government to pay other taxes… Weird… And I don’t see either in what ways they “sustain the economy of a country”… And I don’t know what “recessive” taxes are… Oh yes I remember, the taxes in a recession, right? Yes, of course, how could I be so dumb…
1. Taxes are necessary in order to maintain government revenue, which is used to benefit the whole of society by being invested in public goods and public works projects. Some public goods include law enforcement, firefighters, and sanitation.
2. There are people that argue that the progressive tax system will destroy incentive because people will not want to be rich if it comes along with higher taxes. The idea presented here is inaccurate, entrepreneurial spirit is still alive, so long as all incomes aren’t directly controlled by the government. Those with a higher income still have the opportunity to live very luxurious lifestyles.
3. The largest tax burden of a sales tax falls on the poor. A sales tax is inherently unfair because the poor have to pay the same amount as the rich who have much higher incomes. However, the rich pay a greater income tax than the poor, so in the end the government is just trying to achieve a balance in taxes by combining fairness and unfairness (just like the Senate and the House of Representatives). All states have the same amount of representatives in the Senate, but they have representatives based on population in the House. This is just the way that the United States government is set up to solve the fairness/unfairness conflict.
Marcelo,
Do you think that the government’s combination of the progressive income tax and the “unfair” sales tax turn out to be fair in the end? I personally think that all parties come out satisfied to an extent in the end, which is the most appropriate scenario. It isn’t appropriate for either party to be the only happy party in the end and I think that the government understands this full and well, which is why they combine different taxes in order to achieve “fairness.”
-Dennis-
1. Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
Taxes are necessary to facilitate government welfare for the poor people AND rich people. Public transportation system, maintenance of roads, utility, social healthcare system, or any type of government industry are funded by tax revenue, and without, the government won’t be able to operate these public goods. In Japan, the public transportation system and police departments are maintained by tax. Without our daily transportation method would be extremely difficult and the security of the citizen is not established without police.
2. Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
The rich people in society are usually the ones who worked the hardest to reach to their positions with their creativity and innovative invention. The progressive tax system would disrespects the achievements of the successfully people and penalize them for their hard work, when they should be rewarded for their contributions to economy.
3. On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?
In theory, the regressive tax is more advantageous for the rich people because the tax constitutes more percentage of the poor person’s income than rich. However in reality, the largest burden of a sales tax is probably the richer people because they are the people who consume more. If they consume more, majority of the sale tax revenue comes from the rich people.
@Dennis
What you say is completely contradictory! You have to remember that the rich pay for the regressive tax too. They also consume. How is it fair if they must pay high rates of progressive tax in addition to regressive tax?
1. I think they are essential as the government has no actual money for itself even though they still consume. As a result, taxes help for public goods such as education, health care and social security.
2. I disagree since the tax percentage increases the income, meaning people will still earn more than before.
3. For the poor, according to their income they are consuming a major part of their income in taxes, unlike the rich is almost nothing.
Hi Laura,
I dont understand the fact that you are saying that government’s taxes pay their taxes… However, I do believe that with the taxes payed by rich and poor, the government uses this money to invest, develop and improve goods and services for society, in terms of public goods, as such as education, health, social security, etc.
Armando
1. Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
Taxes are necessary because the government can use its revenues to spend in public goods, such as defense, education, public transport systems or road construction. If these goods were not public goods they would be more expensive and not everyone would be able to use them – they would then be characterized by excludability and rivalry. In Belgium, tax revenues are used to maintain, amongst others, health care, which ensures Belgian citizens are healthy and therefore more productive, the public transportation system, which increases the efficiency of the economy, and education as this too will increase the productivity of the workforce.
2. Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
A progressive tax system is seen by some people as “a punishment for the rich” as it, by demanding the highest tax rate from the rich, in a way penalizes the rich for the hard work they have inserted into becoming rich. Therefore people would be discouraged from investing into research or development or working harder with the purpose of becoming more wealthy, as they would see a great portion of their income disappearing to tax. I personally disagree with this claim as the richest will always have enough money despite the fact that a lot of it goes to taxes, and though they might have worked hard to become wealthy, as soon as they are wealthy they will be merited a lot more than someone with lower income working twice as hard.
3. On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?
The largest burden of a sales tax falls on low income people, as a larger percentage of their income goes to this tax than with high income people. Therefore a sales tax is not “fair” as the rich will benefit from this will the poor will see more of their income going to tax, and incomes will be distributed unfairly.
Chamonix,
Your response to Brad is very interesting and I second your opinion for the need for progressive taxes to redistribute income. I really liked how you pointed out that capital is essential for research and development which would mean it is usually the rich that conduct R&D and become richer as a result of this. I also believe that while entrepreneurship and innovation is necessary, also the work of, for example, construction workers is vital to an economy to for instance maintain transport systems and create new buildings.
@ Marcelo,
I think Laura means regressive tax, which is probably why she says “people don’t have enough income to pay for their consumption.”
-Eline
[...] read this article, the one Sang posted on Diigo. His choice of articles are always interesting, well written, and are [...]
Sorry, i’m just a lay person, but explain to my why countries like Denmark and Sweden exercise such hectic taxation laws and they consistently enjoy a top 5 ranking, in terms of quality of life, Why is it that larger countries don’t adopt the same system?
Paul, Good question! You’d think America would begin to catch on… the happiest countries in the world tend to be those whose governments provide the most public goods to their citizens. In Denmark and Sweden, as well as in most other European countries, a student can go from pre-K to PhD without a penny of debt, all paid for by the government. How would you like to start a career with PhD and start saving for your retirement from day 1, instead of spending the first two decades of your career paying off student loans and credit card bills you ran up while you were a poor student?
Sure, those who earn the most may be paying half of their hard earned income to the government in taxes, but imagine being able to retire at 62 and enjoying a generous and guaranteed government provided pension until you die. Imagine going through your life NEVER having to worry about what would happen if you broke a leg or came down with an illness while in between jobs, since you are given health insurance for life just for being a citizen! Wouldn’t you be happier and less stressed, more content and relaxed if you could live a life free of the financial anxiety brought on by the costs of health, education and retirement in America?
I heard a great episode of NPR’s Planet Money recently where the host went to Denmark (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html) which was voted this year as one of the the happiest countries on earth, to figure out exactly why those Danes were just so darn happy about their lives. What they found were several European immigrants (from other RICH European countries) who had actually moved to Denmark to work in regular old jobs, precisely BECAUSE the taxes were higher there. People interviewed actually said they moved there because the taxes were higher, therefore they were able to enjoy a more comfortable quality of life due to the generous provision of goods and services by the government.
In the spectrum between total freedom and total government control, I tend to think that total freedom may at times lead not to happiness and individual liberty as much as it leads to stress, uncertainty, anxiety, poor health and a life of never-ending debt and financial distress.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in liberty and the efficiency of free markets. But in certain cases, particularly health care, education and the responsibility for the nation’s elderly, the United States has a lot to learn from its Northern European friends. But why don’t we have the same system? Because any politician who attempts to pass legislation to make us more like them is instantly labelled a socialist and his face is plastered onto posters with a Hitler mustache on it and marches are led by those claiming we’ll be like North Korea in no time!
Go figure, Americans want to take care of themselves, let them… In the mean time, I’m happy to be an American living in Europe, for the time being at least!