So you agree that an inescapable* universal tax more pervasive than even an income tax, enforced at a flat rate, is a bad idea if you're a Dem who rails daily and weekly against regressive taxation?

AGREED!

WE HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH!


* For Californians

 

-----signature-----

I think the problems with your argument have been pointed out to you already and now you are just repeating your strawman and your ignorance over and over. It is hard to watch.


You remind me of how paul used to be. After getting demolished in thread after thread eventually you just become a joke.

 

-----signature-----

Thanks. I'll check back in tomorrow.

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

Ya still don't realize why this sentence is tripping you up?

 

-----signature-----

Apparently you and many others don't realize why it is tripping you up.

I can't draw a map any more clear unless I opened up your skulls and tattoo'd it in on your (tiny) brains. The persistent denial of this shows me I've scored a 100% win on this topic.

I'm fully aware of The Outpost Prime Directive: True is False. Then is now. They are us. All hail NewSpeak!

 

-----signature-----

Making a tax less regressive is pushing through a regressive tax.


Being against a federal flat tax to replace the income tax because it is too regressive means you can't have any nuanced opinion on the many other taxes we have including state taxes.


Pointing out that gas taxes go to help pay for roads is immaterial when talking about what taxes are used.


Pointing out the fight at the state level against other regressive taxes is irrelevant.


etc etc


Like I said, you have been beaten so consistantly you are becoming brain damaged like paul. paul used to be more like you, now look at him.

 

-----signature-----

Could you perhaps provide an example of how a gas tax CAN be progressive? I do agree that in general, sales taxes and consumption taxes are not progressive. I will also stipulate that many liberals call them regressive. I think they are pushing the envelope a bit, though. However, what you are ranting about...the change from a % tax to a flat tax has absolutely no effect on whether the tax is "regressive" or not.

If you want to make an argument that states should only have a progressive income tax and do away with all the other taxes, I am with you. If you want to blast Democrats and/or Republicans for state lotteries, I will bring the torches. Worst tax their is, imho.

But, your rant on Democrats is based on the change from a % charge per gallon to a flat charge per gallon. That has absolutely no effect on the degree the tax is regressive and will save money if gasoline prices go up.

 

-----signature-----

AA I am going to offer some advice and feel free to take it or ignore it, but when everyone is saying you are wrong it's time for some reevaluation and/or self reflection on the topic in question.

 

-----signature-----

That's as far as you need to go to understand then, Groucho.

Dems rant that there is no way a flat tax should ever be applied in any environ or to anything without an exemption floor because it "disproportionately punishes the poor and working class." No percentage-based or flat-rate income tax. The Poor should be exempted from flat or even % based consumption taxes on food. Etc.

Dems turn around when they are in legislative control in Cali and levy a tax on the ONE THING that is the ALMOST UNIVERSALLY PERVASIVE cost driver in our economy: gas. Thereby raising the price universally and flatly (regressively) on ***everything*** in their state. Not just income. Not just food. ***f'cking everything for everyone always***

Does that clear it up for you?

 

-----signature-----