States Consider Increasing Taxes for the Poor and Cutting Them for the Affluent

[DCal430]

LOL!

Guess that's why the majority of states with higher unemployment are the red southern states and the majority of the "high tax" states seem to be doing a bit better in this recovery, such as it is.

This isn't true at all.

 

[Matt1970]

LOL!

Guess that's why the majority of states with higher unemployment are the red southern states and the majority of the "high tax" states seem to be doing a bit better in this recovery, such as it is.

Except for, you know, the 2 biggest high tax states.

States by Unemplyment Rate:

#49 CALIFORNIA 7.0
#31 NEW YORK 5.8

I mean those 2 states alone account for almost 20% of the entire US population.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

 

[1prophet]

It will create construction jobs & commerce in materials that might not otherwise occur. In that, it can be seen as a jobs program. OTOH, money has been moved from education to entertainment...

I mean, what's more important? Education, or football?

It's all about priorities...

Ask Liberal Hollywood/Entertainment industry, they're the ones constantly brainwashing the American public that the Sport, Rock/Rap, Movie star is more important and almost always degrade the intellectual and education through their demeaning portrayals in television/movies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ask Liberal Hollywood/Entertainment industry, they're the ones constantly brainwashing the American public that the Sport, Rock/Rap, Movie star is more important and almost always degrade the intellectual and education through their demeaning portrayals in television/movies.

Pulled that right out of your ass, huh?

 

[PokerGuy]

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

No, the idiot OP was trying to point at the evil conservatives for setting up taxes such that the poor pay more. In reality, if you have a problem with such regressive taxes (cig taxes, gas taxes etc), start pointing your finger at the blue states governments. In other words, complete OP fail.

That does not mean I support the higher gas taxes either, just pointing out the flawed logic. I'm opposed to raising the taxes for anyone at this point.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, the idiot OP was trying to point at the evil conservatives for setting up taxes such that the poor pay more. In reality, if you have a problem with such regressive taxes (cig taxes, gas taxes etc), start pointing your finger at the blue states governments. In other words, complete OP fail.

That does not mean I support the higher gas taxes either, just pointing out the flawed logic. I'm opposed to raising the taxes for anyone at this point.

Excuse me, but Repub governors & legislators are loathe to raise taxes, but when the necessity presents itself they opt to spread the pain to the little guy where it'll hurt the most, not to the people where it won't matter as much. They call it compassionate conservatism.

Repubs still pitch trickle down economics, too, as if it's ever actually worked that way. And their base loves it, loves all the chest puffing, fear mongering & flag waving, the delicious sense of self righteousness & persecution, Us against them, the titillation of faux scandals, the promise of getting rich, all the talk of freedom, liberty, values & Jesus.

They're putty in the hands of a higher power, the right wing propaganda machine.

 

[highland145]

They're putty in the hands of a higher power, the right wing propaganda machine.

lol Like every politician isn't.

 

[Matt1970]

Excuse me, but Repub governors & legislators are loathe to raise taxes, but when the necessity presents itself they opt to spread the pain to the little guy where it'll hurt the most, not to the people where it won't matter as much. They call it compassionate conservatism.

I am sorry, but who is spreading the pain to the little guy?

Top 5 states for gas tax.

Pennsylvania 68.9
New York 68.7
Connecticut 65.8
California 63.8
Hawaii 63.4

Those damn republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

I am sorry, but who is spreading the pain to the little guy?

Why are you so focused on gas taxes? The easiest way to figure out what states are probably screwing poor people the most is to look for ones with no income tax. They usually replace it with a sales tax, which is about the most regressive tax there is. Overall the state's with the most regressive taxes tend to be a mix of red and blue states though. (Although blue states often offer more services, which blunts the effect somewhat)

 

[PokerGuy]

<useless drivel snipped>

Just more blah blah blah ranting against the conservative strawman. Bottom line, OP tried to point the finger at the evil conservatives for those nasty regressive taxes, but the reality is that most of those regressive taxes exist in solidly blue states/cities. States with no income taxes tend to have higher sales taxes and property taxes, but there overall taxation level is generally still lower than other states. Many blue states have the double wammy - both high income taxes and high sales taxes.

Regardless, complete fail in trying to fling mud at the evil conservative boogeyman.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why are you so focused on gas taxes? The easiest way to figure out what states are probably screwing poor people the most is to look for ones with no income tax. They usually replace it with a sales tax, which is about the most regressive tax there is.

The states with no income tax are: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Tennessee.

With the exception of Tennessee, none of those states are even in the top 10 for sales taxes, while 4 of them (Alaska, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Wyoming) either have no sales tax at all or are in the top 10 lowest in the nation. Hardly examples of how not having an income tax correlates with high regressive sales taxes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just more blah blah blah ranting against the conservative strawman. Bottom line, OP tried to point the finger at the evil conservatives for those nasty regressive taxes, but the reality is that most of those regressive taxes exist in solidly blue states/cities. States with no income taxes tend to have higher sales taxes and property taxes, but there overall taxation level is generally still lower than other states. Many blue states have the double wammy - both high income taxes and high sales taxes.

Regardless, complete fail in trying to fling mud at the evil conservative boogeyman.

Totally committed to to the cause, such as it is. Not that you have actual reason for that- it's just what you believe quite fervently. I realize that facts have no influence in the formation of your opinions, but I'll introduce a few, anyway-

http://www.itep.org/whopays/

http://www.itep.org/whopays/executive_summary.php

If you think about it at all, which you won't, the reason that some states have lower overall taxation is just that they tax the people at the top less & those at the bottom often more to arrive at that. Texas & Florida are prime examples- great places to be Rich.

None of which changes the fact that the red state govts in the OP's article intend to make that worse, not better.

 

[fskimospy]

The states with no income tax are: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Tennessee.

With the exception of Tennessee, none of those states are even in the top 10 for sales taxes, while 4 of them (Alaska, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Wyoming) either have no sales tax at all or are in the top 10 lowest in the nation. Hardly examples of how not having an income tax correlates with high regressive sales taxes.

A few things:

1. I should have said low or no income taxes. Also, there are other regressive taxes and fees which these states employ.
2. You appear to only be counting state rates and not state and local combined, which is inaccurate.
3. You're only looking at rates, not what those rates apply to, which varies hugely by state. Many states exempt food, labor charges, etc. Hawaii is notorious for having a relatively low sales tax rate but having it cover EVERYTHING. Ie: a 5% tax rate that covers 100% of things you buy taxes you more than a 10% tax rate that covers 10% of what you buy. This is common.

An you look at a chart of states with low or no income taxes and then compare the percentage of income paid by the poor in taxes and fees as compared to states with high income taxes you will see what I am talking about. This shouldn't be any big surprise. Most income taxes are progressive.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Easy - you don't treat income from capital gains, or business value, or real estate any differently than any other income. Then you have progressive income taxes. You don't need separate taxes for every scenario any more than you do right now. Why do you see a need for taxing short term and long term investment differently?

Investments mean risk, so yes, you can lose money on investments, in which case your income from it is less and you're taxed less. That's nothing different from the status quo.

Congrats on your smug superiority though, I'm sure it's absolutely well-earned and that you're totally right that everyone who disagrees is just an emotional fool before your ubermensch rational brilliance.

Oh wow... so naive. It's obvious you have little knowledge(may or may not be your fault) of money/taxes/investments nor what the time value of money is and how it affects wealth.
Since you asked why I see a need to treat long and short differently, let me ask you this: Are you suggesting "income" be taxed only when realized? What is your definition of "income"(or I'll help here - "realized income")?

You see, most "rich" don't realize income from investments, they roll them into other investments. Heck, most "rich" don't even have them as personal investments. But yeah, continue on thinking that taxing everything progressively will work... sheesh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It will create construction jobs & commerce in materials that might not otherwise occur. In that, it can be seen as a jobs program. OTOH, money has been moved from education to entertainment...

I mean, what's more important? Education, or football?

It's all about priorities...

lol. While the Bucks may not play great basketball, they sure don't play football. BTW, it's not 200mil in spending like you libs are trying to claim. So no, it's not taking from education and giving to entertainment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

Is a gas tax regressive?

Yes.

Ok, so how is it not relevant that the liberal blue states have high gas taxes? Surely they have already increased "taxes for the poor"? no?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh wow... so naive. It's obvious you have little knowledge(may or may not be your fault) of money/taxes/investments nor what the time value of money is and how it affects wealth.
Since you asked why I see a need to treat long and short differently, let me ask you this: Are you suggesting "income" be taxed only when realized? What is your definition of "income"(or I'll help here - "realized income")?

You see, most "rich" don't realize income from investments, they roll them into other investments. Heck, most "rich" don't even have them as personal investments. But yeah, continue on thinking that taxing everything progressively will work... sheesh.

Investment income is almost exclusively for the rich.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Investment income is almost exclusively for the rich.

Yes it currently is that way but doesn't have to be. I have non-IRA/etc investments and I am FAR from "rich" yet. However it doesn't mean I shouldn't try to invest like they do.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, so how is it not relevant that the liberal blue states have high gas taxes? Surely they have already increased "taxes for the poor"? no?

Actually no state has an overall progressive form of taxation, however blue states tend to have less regressive taxation policies than red states. For a quick and easy breakdown reference this:

http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/tax-fairness

As mentioned earlier, reduced regressivity generally comes through a progressive state income tax that helps offset the regressive nature of most other taxes, fees, etc.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Actually no state has an overall progressive form of taxation, however blue states tend to have less regressive taxation policies than red states. For a quick and easy breakdown reference this:

http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/tax-fairness

As mentioned earlier, reduced regressivity generally comes through a progressive state income tax that helps offset the regressive nature of most other taxes, fees, etc.

Oh so it's better for the poor since the "rich" are paying more? How does that work when they poor in those states are paying high(and regressive) gas taxes?
This isn't an "on balance" issue.

 

[PokerGuy]

Totally committed to to the cause, such as it is. Not that you have actual reason for that- it's just what you believe quite fervently. I realize that facts have no influence in the formation of your opinions, but I'll introduce a few, anyway-

http://www.itep.org/whopays/

http://www.itep.org/whopays/executive_summary.php

ITEP ..... lol. Do you want to quote huffpo next? Or maybe dailykos? Worthless drivel.

If you think about it at all, which you won't, the reason that some states have lower overall taxation is just that they tax the people at the top less & those at the bottom often more to arrive at that. Texas & Florida are prime examples- great places to be Rich.

... which has exactly nothing to do with the points I made. Continue to fight the stawman as you wish.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh so it's better for the poor since they "rich" are paying more? How does that work when they poor in those states are paying high(and regressive) gas taxes?
This isn't an "on balance" issue.

It absolutely is an 'on balance' issue. It's better for the poor if the rich are paying more as they would get more services as compared to what they were paying in.

 

[PokerGuy]

A few things:

2. You appear to only be counting state rates and not state and local combined, which is inaccurate.

Nope, was looking at a list of composite sales taxes for various states, based on local and state level.

3. You're only looking at rates, not what those rates apply to, which varies hugely by state. Many states exempt food, labor charges, etc. Hawaii is notorious for having a relatively low sales tax rate but having it cover EVERYTHING. Ie: a 5% tax rate that covers 100% of things you buy taxes you more than a 10% tax rate that covers 10% of what you buy. This is common.

Fair enough, I'm sure that has an impact.

An you look at a chart of states with low or no income taxes and then compare the percentage of income paid by the poor in taxes and fees as compared to states with high income taxes you will see what I am talking about. This shouldn't be any big surprise. Most income taxes are progressive.

Note that many of the most regressive taxes aren't usually even counted in the figures. For example, cigarette taxes and state lotteries. Bastions of conservatism like NY and IL have some of the highest cig taxes in the country, penalizing the poor far more than the wealthy. The point is that OP tried to attack the evil conservative boogeyman/strawman and failed miserably. The overall fairness of the tax systems and their relative effect is another thread altogether.

Incidentally, since the wealthy will always spend a smaller percentage of their income than the poor, there will always be an element of regressive tax impact on anything related to consumption. I don't think there's an easy way around that.

 

[PokerGuy]

LOL!

Guess that's why the majority of states with higher unemployment are the red southern states and the majority of the "high tax" states seem to be doing a bit better in this recovery, such as it is.

Yeah, because correlation always equals causation.

Sheesh.

 

[fskimospy]

Note that many of the most regressive taxes aren't usually even counted in the figures. For example, cigarette taxes and state lotteries. Bastions of conservatism like NY and IL have some of the highest cig taxes in the country, penalizing the poor far more than the wealthy. The point is that OP tried to attack the evil conservative boogeyman/strawman and failed miserably. The overall fairness of the tax systems and their relative effect is another thread altogether.

I would have to check what taxes are included. Any tax or fee should be included, although including the lottery would be a little dicier in my opinion.

Incidentally, since the wealthy will always spend a smaller percentage of their income than the poor, there will always be an element of regressive tax impact on anything related to consumption. I don't think there's an easy way around that.

There is though! It's built into most flat tax proposals: some sort of 'prebate' based on income where you get money to offset the first $X of consumption taxes.

I don't have any fundamental problem with a consumption tax, in many ways it is much more efficient than the way we do things now. If we were to keep the system's progressivity as it is now (or preferably, increase it) and switch to a consumption tax that would be fine by me.