It’s definitionally progressive, not regressive. The more money you spend the more tax you pay. If you have more money, it’s highly likely you’re spending more, in absolute terms. Relatively, you might spend less percentage of income though. That’s why we should have other taxes, like wealth, property, and land value —the latter I think is one of the most important taxes we could add, particularly in high population areas.
No? Progressive is “the more you have, the more you’re taxed.” A regressive one is one that the doesn’t increase as you gain more wealth. At the highest ends of wealth, sales tax may break down, because you literally can’t spend all that wealth.
A sales tax at targeting the wealthy, but not ultra-wealthy. It just isn’t a single solution to everything, and nothing is. I think a sales tax is a great option, if it’s instituted with a decrease in income tax on poor people (or in general, because income tax doesn’t tax investments making more money, so it doesn’t effect the wealthy much).
We can both agree, I assume, that an income tax is progressive, right? It still becomes regressive with the ultra-wealthy though, since their increase in wealth is largely not from income. That doesn’t change the fact it’s a progressive tax though.
A regressive tax is like a lump sum tax. It’s a higher percentage for poor people. A sales tax increases as spending increases, aka progresses.
I mean they list it as their first example of a regressive tax. I learned that it was considered regressive from hank green, who’s a well known science educator. And its always possible he got something wrong, this isnt science, but thats why I looked it up just now…
Edit: the IRS website has a reference page for teachers on educational content and exercise for school kids. It describes some taxes as “truly regressive” and the wording suggests its considered a gradient of impact relative to wealth, but it also explicitly says:
Classroom Activity
Explain to students that sales taxes are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income taxpayers than from high-income taxpayers
Maybe. I see it more as a mixed bag. It’s regressive only after you have too much money to spend, and the people with literally zero savings (the latter can be solved with a tax rebate).
It does do a better job at capturing wealth that is trying to be obfiscated though. Income tax works for people recieving their money as income, but for others it’s easy to avoid. A sales tax captures it at spending though. The only way to avoid it is to just not purchase anything.
I see pros and cons for it. It’s not the first option I’d reach for (land value tax is my #1, since it solves cost of living issues too, but also capital gains, inheritance, and wealth taxes should be first), but it can be part of the solution. It just needs to also come with methods of either reducing the harm to poor people, or helping them in some way.
Certainly, it almost undoubtedly has pros and cons, but every source I saw explicitly describes it as an example of a regressive tax, so I do feel like its fair to put “regressive” in the cons column… 😅
I dont personally have a strong stance on the subject, I dont know a ton about taxes, I was mostly just explaining why someone might want to do away with it because folks were misunderstanding the person who wished we didn’t have it. I only know its considered regressive because hank green talked about it in a video. I was just trying to add context based on something I had learned
I think its fair to ague it still serves certain purposes or has advantages, but I get the distinct impression its considered ‘on the regressive end of the spectrum’ by every authority on the subject that I have access to, I’m not sure you’re right that it’s just “maybe” regressive 😅
Regressive doesn’t mean you pay less as you get richer. Regressive means you pay a smaller portion of your income as you earn more (the opposite of a progressive tax like income). Higher income people spend less and less of a portion of their income on consumable products and services (and more on sheltered investments or property), so spend a smaller fraction of their income on sales tax. That is the definition of a regressive tax.
*even though it is a regressive tax, it still should be applied fairly or eliminated all together. No more exemptions for silicon valley.
It’s definitionally progressive, not regressive. The more money you spend the more tax you pay. If you have more money, it’s highly likely you’re spending more, in absolute terms. Relatively, you might spend less percentage of income though. That’s why we should have other taxes, like wealth, property, and land value —the latter I think is one of the most important taxes we could add, particularly in high population areas.
You just described what regressive means. Sales tax is absolutely a regressive tax, since it impacts poor people more than rich people.
No? Progressive is “the more you have, the more you’re taxed.” A regressive one is one that the doesn’t increase as you gain more wealth. At the highest ends of wealth, sales tax may break down, because you literally can’t spend all that wealth.
A sales tax at targeting the wealthy, but not ultra-wealthy. It just isn’t a single solution to everything, and nothing is. I think a sales tax is a great option, if it’s instituted with a decrease in income tax on poor people (or in general, because income tax doesn’t tax investments making more money, so it doesn’t effect the wealthy much).
We can both agree, I assume, that an income tax is progressive, right? It still becomes regressive with the ultra-wealthy though, since their increase in wealth is largely not from income. That doesn’t change the fact it’s a progressive tax though.
A regressive tax is like a lump sum tax. It’s a higher percentage for poor people. A sales tax increases as spending increases, aka progresses.
I’m no tax expert but my understanding is that sales tax is classified as a regressive tax
https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/regressive-tax/
I mean they list it as their first example of a regressive tax. I learned that it was considered regressive from hank green, who’s a well known science educator. And its always possible he got something wrong, this isnt science, but thats why I looked it up just now…
Edit: the IRS website has a reference page for teachers on educational content and exercise for school kids. It describes some taxes as “truly regressive” and the wording suggests its considered a gradient of impact relative to wealth, but it also explicitly says:
Maybe. I see it more as a mixed bag. It’s regressive only after you have too much money to spend, and the people with literally zero savings (the latter can be solved with a tax rebate).
It does do a better job at capturing wealth that is trying to be obfiscated though. Income tax works for people recieving their money as income, but for others it’s easy to avoid. A sales tax captures it at spending though. The only way to avoid it is to just not purchase anything.
I see pros and cons for it. It’s not the first option I’d reach for (land value tax is my #1, since it solves cost of living issues too, but also capital gains, inheritance, and wealth taxes should be first), but it can be part of the solution. It just needs to also come with methods of either reducing the harm to poor people, or helping them in some way.
Certainly, it almost undoubtedly has pros and cons, but every source I saw explicitly describes it as an example of a regressive tax, so I do feel like its fair to put “regressive” in the cons column… 😅
I dont personally have a strong stance on the subject, I dont know a ton about taxes, I was mostly just explaining why someone might want to do away with it because folks were misunderstanding the person who wished we didn’t have it. I only know its considered regressive because hank green talked about it in a video. I was just trying to add context based on something I had learned
I think its fair to ague it still serves certain purposes or has advantages, but I get the distinct impression its considered ‘on the regressive end of the spectrum’ by every authority on the subject that I have access to, I’m not sure you’re right that it’s just “maybe” regressive 😅
Regressive doesn’t mean you pay less as you get richer. Regressive means you pay a smaller portion of your income as you earn more (the opposite of a progressive tax like income). Higher income people spend less and less of a portion of their income on consumable products and services (and more on sheltered investments or property), so spend a smaller fraction of their income on sales tax. That is the definition of a regressive tax.
*even though it is a regressive tax, it still should be applied fairly or eliminated all together. No more exemptions for silicon valley.