Talk:Regressive tax

message: ok, both the article and this talk page focus a lot on how fixed charges equally applied to all may "appear" regressive in their net effects, but what about an ACTUAL regressive tax, esp on income?  e.g. one where a $100k earner pays 30%, say, but a $200k earner only pays 25%?  and not after a lot of tortured analysis involving deductions, tax incidence, family budgets, etc. etc., but where the actual BRACKETS are regressive?
THAT is the true meaning of a "regressive tax" - why does the article not even MENTION it?! 66.3.106.3 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the article covers the correct definition, then the rest of it leads into the incorrect definition.  A flat tax (e.g., 10% applied consistently to all consumption or all income) is *not* regressive from a strict definition point of view.  This turns the article political.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.254.3 (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a reference for that definition? The number one google hit for regressive tax is this article. The number two google hit states, in the lede, that a uniform tax is regressive.50.147.26.108 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  um..."Regressive tax" anyone? 

message: “Poll tax” means something very different in British and American English.  In the United States, it was a tax that you had to pay to vote.
:That's not quite correct: see the poll tax article which has a good explanation. Ellsworth 21:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Tax 

message: "A regressive tax is a tax which takes a larger percentage of income from people whose income is low"
:Now we're talking.--Jerryseinfeld 03:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the example you gave, it is more likely the tax is on income, not people. In that case, the first 10k income would be taxed at 10%, and the next 10k would be taxed at 9%, so someone making less would never pay more real money than someone making more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.189.205 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: What you describe is a proportional tax, not regressive nor progressive.  Sales taxes can be made to have progressive effects.  Many of the exemptions in common sales taxes are intended to decrease the burden on necessities, while they sometimes add excise or sales taxes to higher luxury items.  Essentially, in consumption or income, your adjusting the tax base.  Another method would be a tax rebate (something like the FairTax proposal in the U.S.).  Morphh  (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: From Peter Johnson (00:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the advocacy section is fixable. I think it needs to be removed entirely unless someone can come up with at least one sourced instance of a proponent of supply-side economics advocating a regressive tax structure. Under Reagan, for example, the tax structure was not made regressive. It was made less progressive -- a crucial distinction. --Bziobnic 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the two comments above - it's too contentious a claim to make without any supporting evidence. --Aviso 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  claim that supply-side economics advocates regressive taxes 

message: I just spend over an hour working on this article too lose all the dang changes... Ahhhh! I knew I should have saved in steps.  Morphh (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I got a little bit done...  Sorry to vent on the talk. :-) Getting some sleep.  Zzzz  Morphh (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - finished cleaning up the article, added some NPOV balance, and I removed the tag.  We are now in need of some serious reference work to bring this article up to par.  I added a citation needed tag to the talk page to focus attention on correcting this aspect.  Morphh (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahhh

message: Dear editors: I have clarified the article to show that the critique by Dr. Burton Folsom about regressive taxation is indeed his own critique. I know of no other scholar who has ever made the argument that the 1894 income tax statute was declared unconstitutional in Pollock on the ground that the tax was progressive. The tax certainly may have been progressive -- but the decision (or rather, the decisions) in Pollock had absolutely nothing to do with that, as far as I can tell. Not only that, I believe the topic of progressivity is not even mentioned by the Court in the two Pollock decisions.
I therefore modified the article to show that the statement is actually a quote of Dr. Folsom, and I added clarifying language to the effect that the "progressivity" issue was not even mentioned by the Court. Yours, Famspear 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearrangement on the Folsom argument

message: In the Advocacy section the article states that Social Security tax is tied to income when discussing the overall tax burden on individuals in the highest tax bracket. Social Security tax is capped after the earner reaches a certain level (For 2007 its $97,600, I think) that is well below the level at which the highest tax bracket kicks it. This section is misleading or wrong depending on your reading of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.11.113.36 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address this by reordering and rewording some things. Morphh  (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement does not say that it applies to all income of the highest tax bracket.  The tax bracket is used as a reference on how much someone could pay in income taxes and then goes on to state other taxes.  35% Fed, ?% state, 15% FICA (employee and employeer)... Morphh  (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Security Tax based on Income? 

message: The amount of progressivity and regressivity of a tax can be expressed by different metrics.  One of them in widespread use is the Suits index.  I've added the suits index to the "see also" section.  Minnesota appears to make regular reports of the suits index for their tax system.  Interested parties are invited to expand this new article.--Perkinsms 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "see also" 

message: All I can get out of this article is constant advocacy for regressive taxes or at least a slam on progressive ones.  Where is the argument against regressive taxes and for progressive ones?  Saying that progressive taxes "aren't what our founders wanted" is blatant propaganda for the point, considering there is an amendment on the subject.  What our founders wanted, ostensibly, was democracy.  That's what the amendment represents.  To suggest that the results of this process ran afoul of the founders' desires is both meaningless and misleading.  
Perhaps someone can add to this article some comments on social justice, arguments for progressive taxation based on social contract theory, or something similar.
Also of note: Regressive is the opposite of progressive taxation but there's also taxation that is neither progressive nor regressive. Why do most of the arguements look like they are anti-progressive tax arguements rather than pro-regressive tax arguements? ASG82 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jefferson advocated that property taxes should increase geometrically as people are richer. He didn't envision income taxes and I disagree with property tax for a great many reasons (income tax was considered impossible to implement, too, until someone came up with payroll withholding). In any case, we can infer that a progressive income tax is not counter-indicated in preference for a regressive tax of any sort by Jefferson. John Moser (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the criticism? 

message: I don't get why Regressive tax and Progressive tax get separate pages.
Unless there is one page, which begins with definitions and metrics, both pages our not NPOV, IMHO. 
There is also a paucity of citations.
70.22.67.251 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it was thought that both have enough content on their own to justify it.  A suggestion could be made to combine regressive, progressive, and proportional into one article.  As far as NPOV, such content should be able to balance regardless of the article separation.  We're likely to get into duplication of arguments though.  We discussed it here at one point.  I don't think I would object to a merge but I'd have to reread the articles and think about how they should be expanded.  Morphh  (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are Regressive Tax and Progressive tax  not combined?

message: There is a problem with the Jane/John Doe example in the introduction. Although it talks about income throughout, the example doesn't actually specify either John or Jane's income. Instead it specifies their wealth. While it may be that the Jane with her higher wealth also has a higher income, we have no way of knowing from the description. It might just as likely be that John has a high income but spends it all whereas Jane has a low income but saves as much as possible. Thus Jane's relatively high wealth. In light of this it becomes apparent that the percentages quoted have just been plucked out of the air. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point.  We'll have to look at correcting this.  I see you made some changes and then reverted yourself.  Feel free to correct the example and expand upon it with a wealth situation, particularly since income is surprisingly poorly correlated with expenditure.  Annual income is not an especially accurate measure of one's ability to pay.  Morphh  (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the example

message: Here is the first line of this article.  It seems poorly worded and confusing. 
A regressive tax is a tax imposed so that the effective tax rate decreases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.220.203 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're working on a new definition, which is currently presented in the progressive tax article.  I was waiting for any comments before applying it to this article.  We're also considering a merger of the three articles, which would correct this as well.  Morphh  (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer to keep the pages separate.  I don't see any merge discussion though so I guess this idea is out?  Cazort (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear definition

message: It was a bold move of me to entirely delete the section on advocacy.  The reason is that the material there pertained exclusively to opponents of progressive taxation, which is not the same thing as advocacy on behalf of regressive taxation.  If people can find sources that specifically discuss advocacy of regressive taxes and want to incorporate material into the page, please do so.  I don't really know where to find such sources.  Cazort (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes look fine to me, though I did a bit more cutting (listed as IP as Wikipedia logged me out a minute before I submitted).  I removed the U.S. listing as we've seen on other articles... it becomes a country listing and troll ground for criticism / advocacy.  It's better to wrap it into the examples in some limited capacity to express the ideas.  The particulars of a country's progressive or regressive tax system should be addressed on the tax articles specific to that country or the tax.  So this article should just list sourced examples in a global context and not dive too deep into country specifics.  Morphh  (talk) 15:01, 07 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you.  I think your idea of removing the U.S. section and focus and keeping it more general is probably a better approach.  Cazort (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... well, I don't like it how whenever someone adds a reason for either side, it gets deleted because it makes the article biased. Reminds me of the tale where a chair is cut into pieces to get the legs even. If you can't add balancing reasons to the other side, just tell someone else to, instead of deleting. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I deleted the section on "Advocacy"

message: I'm just putting this here so it doesn't get lost, if someone wants to find the source.  I know I've read material that supports the statement, but don't have time at the moment to hunt them down.  American payroll taxes are argued to be a regressive tax but have an overall progressive effect.  See FICA#Social_Security_regressivity_debate which provides two sources for this arguement from the  Congressional Budget Office. Morphh  (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: I removed  the italics in the United States section, specifically the bit "criticized the U.S. tax code as highly regressive." I couldn't see any reason for it to be italicized, and if it the italic text markup was supposed to be quotation marks, it isn't in the cited source. Hopefully I can come back soon and see what I can do about all the missing citations and the somewhat awkward treatment of the subject here. Cheers, Archaeo (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed italicized text 

message: Lotteries are voluntary.  Taxes are mandatory.  A lottery is therefore not a type of tax.  The sentence saying that, "A lottery is, in effect, a tax," should be changed. 130.91.66.233 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lottery 

message: The section 
:According to Congressional Budget Office estimates,[13] the federal tax system is a progressive tax system for earners all but the richest 1% of Americans. According to the study, the lowest earning 20% of Americans (24.1 million households earning an average of $15,900 in 2005) paid an effective federal tax rate of 3.9%, when taking into account income tax, social insurance tax, and excise tax. The highest earning 5% (5.8 million households earning an average of $520,200 in 2005) paid an effective federal tax rate of 21.5%. However, the highest earning 1% of Americans (1.1 million households earning an average of $1,558,500 in 2005) paid an "effective" federal tax rate of 21.3%.
is unsubstantiated or is pointing to the wrong reference.  The Congressional Budget Office report shows an effective rate on all federal taxes to be 4.3% for the lowest quintile.  The top 5% paid an effective rate of 28.9% while the top 1% paid a rate of 31.2%.  Someone else please verify I'm not reading the reference source wrong.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.210.165 (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any of you gents know if these statistics are accounting for double-taxation?  By wage, a consumer spends; revenue goes to wage; and the wage-earner is taxed, thus the consumer spending is taxed at that rate.  By profit sharing (dividends), a consumer spends; revenue goes to profits; the profits are taxed; remaining revenue is sent to shareholders; and the shareholders are taxed at capital gains, thus the consumer spending is taxed at CIT, then the remainder is taxed at capital gains.  Often we discuss shareholders as having their "income" taxed at only the capital gains rate, ignoring that profits taken by CIT are not available to pay dividends while profits directed to wages and bonuses are not taxed as CIT.  Logically, the entire pass through business to the direct individual recipient of income must be considered as the tax cycle. John Moser (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressivity of US Federal Tax System 

message: Shouldn't the mortgage interest deduction be considered an example of regressive taxation? After all, it excludes renters, who are usually poorer than homeowners.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.187.133 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No - it doesn't exclude renters.  The renter doesn't pay tax on the mortgage interest, so it would be a far stretch to suggest not paying tax is regressive.  If you want examine the tax incidence, the owner pays tax, of which some interest is deductible. The base costs is then used to determine a market price for the rental property.  So this deduction is already reflected in the cost to the renter.  What the interest deduction creates is a economic distortion between the real estate market and other consumer markets, not between owners and renters.  Generally taxes on property would fall into the proportional category. Morphh  (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This is why I included a new section in talk on property taxes. It can't go one way. Either the mortgage interest deduction is a regressive tax or property taxes are. If the mortgage interest deduction is taken out of rent, then property tax is added. This article, by the exclusion of both, fails to be complete. --Jdblick (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I think the mortgage deduction is a good example of a regressive tax. It is kind of like preferential rates for dividends and capital gains. It is available to everyone, people who are in the 15% tax bracket or less don't have to pay a single penny of tax! So generous of the government except I highly double anyone making $15k/year is getting any dividends or capital gains. The more affluent homeowners are allowed to deduct interest where renters aren't. Furthermore, the IRC allows for a second home deduction as well. There is something inherently inequitable about allowing homeowners to deduct the interest from two homes whereas the renter isn't allowed to deduct even a fraction of rental expenses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.227.245 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The mortgage interest deduction is not a tax.  It's a subsidy.  Therefore it is outside the scope of this article.  Federales (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of regressive US tax 

message: I'm thinking we should remove / relocate the entire U.S. section of this article to Progressivity in United States income tax.  It doesn't belong in a general article about regressive taxation, except as perhaps specific examples in the Example section.  Morphh  (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Until this page might be moved toProgressivity in United States income tax, Can I remove the sentence in the first paragraph that says: lower income earners are more affected by the regressive tax.?? the specific part says:, ...a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich —...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.29.220 (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, that statement is not specific to the U.S. so it would seem appropriate here.  The page is not moving, just the section that was specific to the United States, which is listed Talk:Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax#United_States here.  Morphh  (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Global

message: I read this article and found it confusing. I can see that the main definition is heavily referenced, and is most likely correct (a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases).
However some of the examples don't match up with that definition, but do with the popular definition. The popular definition is given offhand in the Eco Tax page: a tax with an average tax rate that decreases as the taxpayer's income increases
For example, when purchasing tobacco the "amount subject to taxation" is the purchase price of the tobacco product.  As an individual purchases more tobacco, the tax rate on that tobacco remains the same. The argument that tobacco tax is regressive talks about the purchasers income.. but that has nothing to do with whether or not the tax is regressive.  From the definition given in this article. A person's income only affects whether a tax is regressive or not in the case of an income tax.
I'm not going to edit the article as it's not my domain.. but this needs to be clarified. Maybe specify in the first paragraph that, whilst the technical definition is about tax rate vs. amount under tax, there is a casual use of "regressive tax" that means "any tax that is paid by poor people more than it is by the rich". Trideceth12 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead sentence describes the primary economic definition of a regressive tax, which describes the rate structure.  That definition applies to the tax base, but what you're describing is often referred to as a regressive effect of the tax policy, which is described a bit in the second paragraph and directly in the third paragraph of the lead.  It's not an adjustment of the tax rate, but application of the tax base.  The opposite would be a luxury tax, which is often considered progressive.  In both cases, the tax rate itself would be a proportional tax if applied broadly, but the demographics of the tax base can create a progressive or regressive effect.  The effect of a regressive tax is to place a higher tax burden relative to resources onto those with a lower ability-to-pay, which is what is described with tabacco for example.  In these cases, the term is being used to described where the tax incidence falls, rather than the rate structure itself.  So, the tax could accurately be described both ways depending on if you're referring to the structure or the tax as a whole.  Hope that helps explain the inconsistency and I'll try to look at the examples and see where we can clarify the wording.  Morphh  (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Definitions 

message: The sections titled disputed and undisputed are arbitrary, without explanation, and therefore reduce the neutrality of this article. A discussion on why certain forms are disputed and certain forms are not is in order, as well as arguments from both sides, as long as the examples are classified in this schema.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.105.21 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, there shouldn't be such a distinction unless it's supported by sources. Darx9url (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisputed vs Disputed 

message: Substituted at 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: - higher proportion of contribution gets more rights in government.
- flat rates are better. equal rights.
ASG
223.225.144.218 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regressive tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209142138/http://bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html
*Added  tag to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Progressive+tax
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regressive tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603151838/http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/R0127100.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/R0127100.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are property taxes not included in the article. Renters pay property taxes in their rent. Jdblick (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property taxes 

message: "These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the people with a higher ability to pay, as they shift the relative burden increasingly to those with a lower ability to pay." A tax cannot "reduce" or "shift". Only a change in tax can do that. Could someone please correct this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2A92:6F00:B049:E0B0:5C53:DEA (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement in summary