AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
I know it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but I would like to know what the Alberta results would have been if the provincial budget had come out before the election.
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
After 5-6 years of 0% increase.
Basically Alberta is going into a depression. Everything will deflate due to the cuts.
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
After 5-6 years of 0% increase.
Basically Alberta is going into a depression. Everything will deflate due to the cuts.
The frustrating thing is how determined the UCP is to make that happen. They ran on an "austerity" without releasing their planned budget..... And their final one is 2B higher than the NDP while slashing and burning services and compensation. First thing they did was give a 4.7 B tax cut to corporations.
Little things like taking the cap of insurance and de-indexing a bunch of things will affect people directly. They have cut essentially every grant for green tech or grants to anything that is not O&G.
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
After 5-6 years of 0% increase.
Basically Alberta is going into a depression. Everything will deflate due to the cuts.
The frustrating thing is how determined the UCP is to make that happen. They ran on an "austerity" without releasing their planned budget..... And their final one is 2B higher than the NDP while slashing and burning services and compensation. First thing they did was give a 4.7 B tax cut to corporations.
Little things like taking the cap of insurance and de-indexing a bunch of things will affect people directly. They have cut essentially every grant for green tech or grants to anything that is not O&G.
Slash taxes and services at the same time? What are they, conservatives?
+3
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
After 5-6 years of 0% increase.
Basically Alberta is going into a depression. Everything will deflate due to the cuts.
The frustrating thing is how determined the UCP is to make that happen. They ran on an "austerity" without releasing their planned budget..... And their final one is 2B higher than the NDP while slashing and burning services and compensation. First thing they did was give a 4.7 B tax cut to corporations.
Little things like taking the cap of insurance and de-indexing a bunch of things will affect people directly. They have cut essentially every grant for green tech or grants to anything that is not O&G.
They also specifically arranged a commission to look into the state of the province's finances, resulting in the MacKinnon Report, but which was specifically instructed not to look at the revenue side of the budget. It could only recommend areas to be cut, and yet still managed to mention:
“While the panel’s mandate is not to opine on the make-up of revenues, to successfully manage the province’s finances, steps need to be taken to increase stable sources of revenue and decrease the reliance on the volatile non-renewable resource revenues...
Perhaps they can consider a non-flat income tax...
You're a few years behind, there are graduated rates in Alberta now, and there's nothing inherently bad about a flat tax since the more you earn the more you pay, it's the choice of the rate which is the problem.
Perhaps they can consider a non-flat income tax...
You're a few years behind, there are graduated rates in Alberta now, and there's nothing inherently bad about a flat tax since the more you earn the more you pay, it's the choice of the rate which is the problem.
Oh I guess they did change that since I last looked, good for them
Perhaps they can consider a non-flat income tax...
You're a few years behind, there are graduated rates in Alberta now, and there's nothing inherently bad about a flat tax since the more you earn the more you pay, it's the choice of the rate which is the problem.
Except the value of every extra dollar you earn is not equal, which is why flat income taxes are dumb.
Perhaps they can consider a non-flat income tax...
You're a few years behind, there are graduated rates in Alberta now, and there's nothing inherently bad about a flat tax since the more you earn the more you pay, it's the choice of the rate which is the problem.
No, a flat tax will always be inherently bad unless it’s turned into a pseudo progressive tax through rebates on things like housing, food, and child care which just leaves it as less bad, but still bad.
Flat taxes are stupid because 50% a lower-middle class families income is a death sentence whereas 50% of a multi-millionaire income is an annoyance.
If you make the rate low enough to not harm the poorest/struggling it becomes entirely irrelevant for the rich.
Which is, of course, the entire point for most flat-tax advocates.
+9
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
A flat tax is progressive, the more you earn the more you pay, that is the definition. There are also basic personal exemptions even in Alberta which had a flat tax so any earnings at or below that level are not taxed provincially.
Except the value of every extra dollar you earn is not equal, which is why flat income taxes are dumb.
That's really simplistic, once you get into the highest tax bracket every province essentially has a flat tax which is the highest rate, there are no provinces with infinite brackets where you pay ever increasing amounts of tax the more you earn. There are ten provincial jurisdictions and 3 territorial ones for tax in Canada with all manner of different cutoffs and rates, and it would be really easy to tax people less using a graduated system than the old Alberta flat tax rate which is why I say the rate is important, not just the fact that it is flat vs graduated.
Flat taxes are stupid because 50% a lower-middle class families income is a death sentence whereas 50% of a multi-millionaire income is an annoyance.
If you make the rate low enough to not harm the poorest/struggling it becomes entirely irrelevant for the rich.
Pretty much this. My combined federal+provincial marginal rate is over 50% but I make enough so whatever. A flat rate would have to be punishingly high to recoup the taxes I would otherwise be paying from lower income people
A flat tax is progressive, the more you earn the more you pay, that is the definition. There are also basic personal exemptions even in Alberta which had a flat tax so any earnings at or below that level are not taxed provincially.
No it's not. Progressive taxation is literally defined as taxation where the rate increases as the value of the thing being taxed rises.
Except the value of every extra dollar you earn is not equal, which is why flat income taxes are dumb.
That's really simplistic, once you get into the highest tax bracket every province essentially has a flat tax which is the highest rate, there are no provinces with infinite brackets where you pay ever increasing amounts of tax the more you earn. There are ten provincial jurisdictions and 3 territorial ones for tax in Canada with all manner of different cutoffs and rates, and it would be really easy to tax people less using a graduated system than the old Alberta flat tax rate which is why I say the rate is important, not just the fact that it is flat vs graduated.
What are you even talking about? "If we ignore all the rate levels below the top one, progressive taxation is also a flat tax" is utterly nonsensical. It's still a progressive taxation scheme if it has a top rate. (mostly because use levels rather then smooth functions for taxation rates because it's easier for people to understand)
Income has diminishing marginal value, which is who progressive income taxes are used.
What are you even talking about? "If we ignore all the rate levels below the top one, progressive taxation is also a flat tax" is utterly nonsensical.
So are statements like flat taxes are dumb or flat taxes are inherently bad. The rate and personal exemptions matter.
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
Unless you are talking about a "Progressive Income Tax" that is only technically legally one (like Alabama which has 3 brackets: $0-500, $501-$3,000, ans >$3,000 which... essentially just a flat 5% tax less a couple hundred bucks)
+5
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
I'm not arguing what system is "better" or more progressive, just that a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on. A graduated rate system can be much worse for low income individuals than the old Alberta flat tax if the rates are high, there are very slim brackets like the Alabama example, or there are very low or no personal exemptions. Blanket generalizations aren't useful, and since no one is bringing up specific examples that can be broken down or analyzed what is the point?
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
I'm not arguing what system is "better" or more progressive, just that a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on. A graduated rate system can be much worse for low income individuals than the old Alberta flat tax if the rates are high, there are very slim brackets like the Alabama example, or there are very low or no personal exemptions. Blanket generalizations aren't useful, and since no one is bringing up specific examples that can be broken down or analyzed what is the point?
Yes, Alabama's rate structure effectively makes it a flat tax, which effectively makes it regressive like a flat tax.
What are you even talking about? "If we ignore all the rate levels below the top one, progressive taxation is also a flat tax" is utterly nonsensical.
So are statements like flat taxes are dumb or flat taxes are inherently bad. The rate and personal exemptions matter.
No, it's not. Flat taxes are basically inherently dumb. The proposal itself mostly exists to strangle government revenue under the guise of "fairness". In practice, they can either be inadequate or over-burdensome on those with lower incomes. The second, again, because of the diminishing marginal value of income. Flat income taxes are regressive.
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
I'm not arguing what system is "better" or more progressive, just that a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on. A graduated rate system can be much worse for low income individuals than the old Alberta flat tax if the rates are high, there are very slim brackets like the Alabama example, or there are very low or no personal exemptions. Blanket generalizations aren't useful, and since no one is bringing up specific examples that can be broken down or analyzed what is the point?
You don't seem to be using the same definition of progressive as everyone else, so how about telling us what it means to you?
+3
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
I'm not arguing what system is "better" or more progressive, just that a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on. A graduated rate system can be much worse for low income individuals than the old Alberta flat tax if the rates are high, there are very slim brackets like the Alabama example, or there are very low or no personal exemptions. Blanket generalizations aren't useful, and since no one is bringing up specific examples that can be broken down or analyzed what is the point?
You don't seem to be using the same definition of progressive as everyone else, so how about telling us what it means to you?
As I've said before, the more you earn the more you pay. Also, there is no upper limit on the amount of tax you can earn from any individual or corporation.
This is in contrast to a regressive tax such as the GST, PST or HST which is borne more heavily by lower income individuals since everyone starts paying from the first dollar they spend until you stop spending money/start saving money, which lower income individuals can't do. At a certain point a rich individual doesn't need any more consumer goods and so stops paying GST.
There are GST rebates, exemptions on certain goods from GST, PST or both which help out lower income individuals, but the exemptions also help out the wealthy, the only thing they don't get is the GST rebate.
10% of 12000 per year is debilitating. 10% of 120000 does not hurt. 10% of 120000000 is irrelevant.
The personal exemption for a single individual with no dependents for 2019 in Alberta is $19,369, if you earn that or less you pay 0% in provincial tax, you only pay tax on amounts above that. Someone earning $30,000 per year would end up paying $1,063.10 in provincial tax, or a marginal tax rate of 3.54%. Rates and personal exemption amounts matter.
10% of 12000 per year is debilitating. 10% of 120000 does not hurt. 10% of 120000000 is irrelevant.
The personal exemption for a single individual with no dependents for 2019 in Alberta is $19,369, if you earn that or less you pay 0% in provincial tax, you only pay tax on amounts above that. Someone earning $30,000 per year would end up paying $1,063.10 in provincial tax, or a marginal tax rate of 3.54%. Rates and personal exemption amounts matter.
Not enough to overcome the reality that for a given government income, a flat tax is *always* more regressive. With a progressive tax that rate you cite could be 1%, because more money is coming from the top end
10% of 12000 per year is debilitating. 10% of 120000 does not hurt. 10% of 120000000 is irrelevant.
The personal exemption for a single individual with no dependents for 2019 in Alberta is $19,369, if you earn that or less you pay 0% in provincial tax, you only pay tax on amounts above that. Someone earning $30,000 per year would end up paying $1,063.10 in provincial tax, or a marginal tax rate of 3.54%. Rates and personal exemption amounts matter.
I know how a ReLU works, thank. It's still linear over the active side, while the correct function is linear nowhere, so it's not a good fit for the impact of taxation.
If the proposal is flat tax plus sufficient modifiers to make it effectively a progressive taxation scheme ... why not just have a progressive taxation scheme?
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
I'm not arguing what system is "better" or more progressive, just that a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on. A graduated rate system can be much worse for low income individuals than the old Alberta flat tax if the rates are high, there are very slim brackets like the Alabama example, or there are very low or no personal exemptions. Blanket generalizations aren't useful, and since no one is bringing up specific examples that can be broken down or analyzed what is the point?
You don't seem to be using the same definition of progressive as everyone else, so how about telling us what it means to you?
As I've said before, the more you earn the more you pay.
You seem to be fabricating new definitions that are entirely at odds with the universally-other-than-you accepted meanings of the term.
Consider not doing that.
The "progressive" in "progressive tax" refers specifically to the rate, not the amount. Any discussion of this that doesn't accept that is no more productive than discussing math while disagreeing over what integer comes after "2," and the disagreement here is roughly as fundamental.
10% of 12000 per year is debilitating. 10% of 120000 does not hurt. 10% of 120000000 is irrelevant.
The personal exemption for a single individual with no dependents for 2019 in Alberta is $19,369, if you earn that or less you pay 0% in provincial tax, you only pay tax on amounts above that. Someone earning $30,000 per year would end up paying $1,063.10 in provincial tax, or a marginal tax rate of 3.54%. Rates and personal exemption amounts matter.
The existence of Personal Exemptions and rebates are independent from rate structure and are more progressive in a progressive rate structure than a flat rate because flat rates are, again, inherently regressive.
Progressive Taxation is a curved line because the marginal rate is inherently below the topline rate. Flat taxation is a straight line because the marginal rate is the same as the topline rate.
a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on.
This is the first time I have heard someone say a flat tax is not a regressive tax and I don't know much about this stuff, so I did some research.
Definition of a regressive tax by the IRS: regressive tax: A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups.
By a strict reading of this definition, a flat tax is not a regressive tax since by definition a flat tax taxes everyone by the same percentage. However, when one considers the reality that the poor have less money to lose the flat tax can be seen, in reality, to be a regressive tax. Another concept that covers this from a different direction was mentioned before: the diminishing marginal utility of income.
I could only find one source that considered a flat income tax to be a regressive tax, see below:
American University: "A pure flat tax, where every citizen pays an equally proportioned amount of his or her earned income, is generally considered to be regressive because the liability on lower income earners represents a much larger percentage of consumption spending than the liability on higher income earners who have more disposable income. "
However, I found numerous sources that considered flat taxes on consumption to be regressive taxes:
IRS: "Although individuals are taxed at the same rate, flat taxes can be considered regressive because a larger portion of income is taken from those with lower incomes." Investopedia: "A sales tax is an example of a regressive tax, although at first glance it may appear to be a flat tax. For example, imagine two people each buy $100 worth of T-shirts and pay a 7% sales tax. Although the tax rate is the same, the individual with the lower income spends more of his wages toward the tax than the person with the higher income, making sales tax regressive." UT: "People who prefer the sales tax as the basis for funding the state government are often quick to argue that such taxes are not regressive: the rich buy more things and they own more expensive houses, cars, boats, etc. Consequently, they end up paying much more in both sales and property taxes. This is certainly true. Nevertheless, the wealthy get to enjoy all of those goods while paying the same tax rates as those who are much less wealthy. It is by this criterion that such flat rate taxes are by definition regressive."
This topic turned out to be more complex than I realized, and perhaps you are right that by a strict adherence to the definition of flat tax and regressive tax, A flat income tax would not be a regressive income tax. However, I think that a very strong case could be made that in reality, a flat income tax would be a move toward a more regressive tax structure. For example:
The ITEP says: "A PROGRESSIVE GRADUATED INCOME TAX IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE LEAST REGRESSIVE STATE TAX SYSTEMS." This paper about Arizona income tax states: "Table 9 compares the average values of the tax burdens by income group and of the tax inequality index for the group of no-income-tax states and average values for the two groups of states levying an income tax. As a group, the no-income-tax states have the most regressive tax systems, with the group of states with a graduated income tax the least regressive, and the group of flat-income-tax states in between. The difference is especially striking for the wealthiest taxpayers — the top 1 percent in the no-income-tax states paid 2.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes versus 4.8 for the flat-income tax states and 5.7 percent in states with a graduated income tax" (Table 9 can be found on page 47 of the document).
Sorry for the data/link dump. I fell down the rabbit hole on this and decided just to compile the info I found here in this post.
Edit: I forgot this was the Canadian politics thread, so here is an excerpt from an informative, but dry research paper by IRPP, a Canadian think tank:
"Substantial progressivity of personal income taxes is required if society wishes to have an overall tax system that is even mildly progressive. Most of the other major types of taxes in Canada have been assessed as regressive, with the exception of the corporate income tax.38 Large revenue generators such as general sales taxes (provincial retail sales taxes and federal GST), excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline, municipal property taxes, and federal payroll taxes are all significantly regressive. Because of saving and spending patterns, sales-type and property taxes take a larger portion of lower than of higher incomes. The taxable ceilings for most payroll taxes also make them relatively more burdensome for lower than higher earners. Even with alternative assumptions about who bears the tax or taking a lifetime perspective on burdens, these taxes are at best somewhat regressive.39 Hence, any proposal to sharply reduce the progressivity of personal income taxes, such as a flat tax plan or even the proposed dual tax, risks the creation of an overall tax system that is regressive. If one desires a progressive tax system – and this is a value judgment that one need not accept – then retaining significant progressivity in personal taxes is essential."
NebulousQ on
+14
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
If the proposal is flat tax plus sufficient modifiers to make it effectively a progressive taxation scheme ... why not just have a progressive taxation scheme?
I don't disagree with this and I never argued otherwise.
My sympathies to Alberta public servants. Here I thought Ontario public servant wage caps at 1% were bad. But a 2-5% wage rollback arbitration ask? Yeesh.
After 5-6 years of 0% increase.
Basically Alberta is going into a depression. Everything will deflate due to the cuts.
The frustrating thing is how determined the UCP is to make that happen. They ran on an "austerity" without releasing their planned budget..... And their final one is 2B higher than the NDP while slashing and burning services and compensation. First thing they did was give a 4.7 B tax cut to corporations.
Little things like taking the cap of insurance and de-indexing a bunch of things will affect people directly. They have cut essentially every grant for green tech or grants to anything that is not O&G.
Slash taxes and services at the same time? What are they, conservatives?
They're also increasing taxes on *checks notes* students, companies conducting R&D, and digital media companies
Id like to congratulate the Alberta UCP party for pissing off a huge chunk of Alberta Public Servants, Unions, Students, Cities etc etc. Not that it will change how this province votes...
The only way I see how our various provinces significantly change their votes, especially Alberta, is if the Left leaning starts owning local media sources as a part of the public record again. Newsletters, radio shows, websites, etc. There are parts of this country where that side of the discourse on everyday local current events is completely nonexistent and it shows at the end of election day's counts.
Id like to congratulate the Alberta UCP party for pissing off a huge chunk of Alberta Public Servants, Unions, Students, Cities etc etc. Not that it will change how this province votes...
The only way I see how our various provinces significantly change their votes, especially Alberta, is if the Left leaning starts owning local media sources as a part of the public record again. Newsletters, radio shows, websites, etc. There are parts of this country where that side of the discourse on everyday local current events is completely nonexistent and it shows at the end of election day's counts.
Completely agreed. The right is blasting their message 24/7/365 through every media they can buy, while the left seems content to sit quietly except for one month every four years. And then wonders why they can't make in-roads with voters and why they are becoming toxic to an increasing portion of the population.
The viceral and personal hatred many voters feel for Clinton, Wynn, and Trudeau, isn't random. It's the result of literally years of sustained propaganda efforts by the right.
[As I've said before, the more you earn the more you pay.
You keep saying that. You're talking about dollar amounts, but taxes are defined as progressive or regressive based on rates. A progressive tax is a tax where, the more you earn, the higher your rate is.
By your definition, you get abherent results like, say, a 99% tax rate on the first $50k people earn and a 1% rate on everything above that is progressive, because the more you earn, the more you pay: someone earning $50k a year only pays $49,500 in taxes but someone earning $1M/year will pay $59,000 in taxes.
Posts
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
After 5-6 years of 0% increase.
Basically Alberta is going into a depression. Everything will deflate due to the cuts.
The frustrating thing is how determined the UCP is to make that happen. They ran on an "austerity" without releasing their planned budget..... And their final one is 2B higher than the NDP while slashing and burning services and compensation. First thing they did was give a 4.7 B tax cut to corporations.
Little things like taking the cap of insurance and de-indexing a bunch of things will affect people directly. They have cut essentially every grant for green tech or grants to anything that is not O&G.
Slash taxes and services at the same time? What are they, conservatives?
They also specifically arranged a commission to look into the state of the province's finances, resulting in the MacKinnon Report, but which was specifically instructed not to look at the revenue side of the budget. It could only recommend areas to be cut, and yet still managed to mention:
ie- Revenue needs to be looked at.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
You're a few years behind, there are graduated rates in Alberta now, and there's nothing inherently bad about a flat tax since the more you earn the more you pay, it's the choice of the rate which is the problem.
Oh I guess they did change that since I last looked, good for them
Except the value of every extra dollar you earn is not equal, which is why flat income taxes are dumb.
No, a flat tax will always be inherently bad unless it’s turned into a pseudo progressive tax through rebates on things like housing, food, and child care which just leaves it as less bad, but still bad.
MWO: Adamski
If you make the rate low enough to not harm the poorest/struggling it becomes entirely irrelevant for the rich.
That's really simplistic, once you get into the highest tax bracket every province essentially has a flat tax which is the highest rate, there are no provinces with infinite brackets where you pay ever increasing amounts of tax the more you earn. There are ten provincial jurisdictions and 3 territorial ones for tax in Canada with all manner of different cutoffs and rates, and it would be really easy to tax people less using a graduated system than the old Alberta flat tax rate which is why I say the rate is important, not just the fact that it is flat vs graduated.
Pretty much this. My combined federal+provincial marginal rate is over 50% but I make enough so whatever. A flat rate would have to be punishingly high to recoup the taxes I would otherwise be paying from lower income people
No it's not. Progressive taxation is literally defined as taxation where the rate increases as the value of the thing being taxed rises.
What are you even talking about? "If we ignore all the rate levels below the top one, progressive taxation is also a flat tax" is utterly nonsensical. It's still a progressive taxation scheme if it has a top rate. (mostly because use levels rather then smooth functions for taxation rates because it's easier for people to understand)
Income has diminishing marginal value, which is who progressive income taxes are used.
Except the marginal value of a dollar is not constant.
So are statements like flat taxes are dumb or flat taxes are inherently bad. The rate and personal exemptions matter.
A progressive rate structure is inherently less regressive than a flat rate because it is progressive and so charges less to those least able to afford it while making up the revenue from those who most can. Because, again, the marginal value of every dollar is not constant.
Unless you are talking about a "Progressive Income Tax" that is only technically legally one (like Alabama which has 3 brackets: $0-500, $501-$3,000, ans >$3,000 which... essentially just a flat 5% tax less a couple hundred bucks)
I'm not arguing what system is "better" or more progressive, just that a flat tax is not regressive like people here seem to be stuck on. A graduated rate system can be much worse for low income individuals than the old Alberta flat tax if the rates are high, there are very slim brackets like the Alabama example, or there are very low or no personal exemptions. Blanket generalizations aren't useful, and since no one is bringing up specific examples that can be broken down or analyzed what is the point?
Yes, Alabama's rate structure effectively makes it a flat tax, which effectively makes it regressive like a flat tax.
No, it's not. Flat taxes are basically inherently dumb. The proposal itself mostly exists to strangle government revenue under the guise of "fairness". In practice, they can either be inadequate or over-burdensome on those with lower incomes. The second, again, because of the diminishing marginal value of income. Flat income taxes are regressive.
You don't seem to be using the same definition of progressive as everyone else, so how about telling us what it means to you?
As I've said before, the more you earn the more you pay. Also, there is no upper limit on the amount of tax you can earn from any individual or corporation.
This is in contrast to a regressive tax such as the GST, PST or HST which is borne more heavily by lower income individuals since everyone starts paying from the first dollar they spend until you stop spending money/start saving money, which lower income individuals can't do. At a certain point a rich individual doesn't need any more consumer goods and so stops paying GST.
There are GST rebates, exemptions on certain goods from GST, PST or both which help out lower income individuals, but the exemptions also help out the wealthy, the only thing they don't get is the GST rebate.
The personal exemption for a single individual with no dependents for 2019 in Alberta is $19,369, if you earn that or less you pay 0% in provincial tax, you only pay tax on amounts above that. Someone earning $30,000 per year would end up paying $1,063.10 in provincial tax, or a marginal tax rate of 3.54%. Rates and personal exemption amounts matter.
Not enough to overcome the reality that for a given government income, a flat tax is *always* more regressive. With a progressive tax that rate you cite could be 1%, because more money is coming from the top end
I know how a ReLU works, thank. It's still linear over the active side, while the correct function is linear nowhere, so it's not a good fit for the impact of taxation.
You seem to be fabricating new definitions that are entirely at odds with the universally-other-than-you accepted meanings of the term.
Consider not doing that.
The "progressive" in "progressive tax" refers specifically to the rate, not the amount. Any discussion of this that doesn't accept that is no more productive than discussing math while disagreeing over what integer comes after "2," and the disagreement here is roughly as fundamental.
The existence of Personal Exemptions and rebates are independent from rate structure and are more progressive in a progressive rate structure than a flat rate because flat rates are, again, inherently regressive.
Progressive Taxation is a curved line because the marginal rate is inherently below the topline rate. Flat taxation is a straight line because the marginal rate is the same as the topline rate.
This is the first time I have heard someone say a flat tax is not a regressive tax and I don't know much about this stuff, so I did some research.
Definition of a regressive tax by the IRS: regressive tax: A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups.
By a strict reading of this definition, a flat tax is not a regressive tax since by definition a flat tax taxes everyone by the same percentage. However, when one considers the reality that the poor have less money to lose the flat tax can be seen, in reality, to be a regressive tax. Another concept that covers this from a different direction was mentioned before: the diminishing marginal utility of income.
I could only find one source that considered a flat income tax to be a regressive tax, see below:
American University: "A pure flat tax, where every citizen pays an equally proportioned amount of his or her earned income, is generally considered to be regressive because the liability on lower income earners represents a much larger percentage of consumption spending than the liability on higher income earners who have more disposable income. "
However, I found numerous sources that considered flat taxes on consumption to be regressive taxes:
IRS: "Although individuals are taxed at the same rate, flat taxes can be considered regressive because a larger portion of income is taken from those with lower incomes."
Investopedia: "A sales tax is an example of a regressive tax, although at first glance it may appear to be a flat tax. For example, imagine two people each buy $100 worth of T-shirts and pay a 7% sales tax. Although the tax rate is the same, the individual with the lower income spends more of his wages toward the tax than the person with the higher income, making sales tax regressive."
UT: "People who prefer the sales tax as the basis for funding the state government are often quick to argue that such taxes are not regressive: the rich buy more things and they own more expensive houses, cars, boats, etc. Consequently, they end up paying much more in both sales and property taxes. This is certainly true. Nevertheless, the wealthy get to enjoy all of those goods while paying the same tax rates as those who are much less wealthy. It is by this criterion that such flat rate taxes are by definition regressive."
This topic turned out to be more complex than I realized, and perhaps you are right that by a strict adherence to the definition of flat tax and regressive tax, A flat income tax would not be a regressive income tax. However, I think that a very strong case could be made that in reality, a flat income tax would be a move toward a more regressive tax structure. For example:
The ITEP says: "A PROGRESSIVE GRADUATED INCOME TAX IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE LEAST REGRESSIVE STATE TAX SYSTEMS."
This paper about Arizona income tax states: "Table 9 compares the average values of the tax burdens by income group and of the tax inequality index for the group of no-income-tax states and average values for the two groups of states levying an income tax. As a group, the no-income-tax states have the most regressive tax systems, with the group of states with a graduated income tax the least regressive, and the group of flat-income-tax states in between. The difference is especially striking for the wealthiest taxpayers — the top 1 percent in the no-income-tax states paid 2.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes versus 4.8 for the flat-income tax states and 5.7 percent in states with a graduated income tax" (Table 9 can be found on page 47 of the document).
Sorry for the data/link dump. I fell down the rabbit hole on this and decided just to compile the info I found here in this post.
Edit: I forgot this was the Canadian politics thread, so here is an excerpt from an informative, but dry research paper by IRPP, a Canadian think tank:
"Substantial progressivity of personal income taxes is required if society wishes to have an overall tax system that is even mildly progressive. Most of the other major types of taxes in Canada have been assessed as regressive, with the exception of the corporate income tax.38 Large revenue generators such as general sales taxes (provincial retail sales taxes and federal GST), excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline, municipal property taxes, and federal payroll taxes are all significantly regressive. Because of saving and spending patterns, sales-type and property taxes take a larger portion of lower than of higher incomes. The taxable ceilings for most payroll taxes also make them relatively more burdensome for lower than higher earners. Even with alternative assumptions about who bears the tax or taking a lifetime perspective on burdens, these taxes are at best somewhat regressive.39 Hence, any proposal to sharply reduce the progressivity of personal income taxes, such as a flat tax plan or even the proposed dual tax, risks the creation of an overall tax system that is regressive. If one desires a progressive tax system – and this is a value judgment that one need not accept – then retaining significant progressivity in personal taxes is essential."
I don't disagree with this and I never argued otherwise.
They're also increasing taxes on *checks notes* students, companies conducting R&D, and digital media companies
So yeah, definitely conservatives
The only way I see how our various provinces significantly change their votes, especially Alberta, is if the Left leaning starts owning local media sources as a part of the public record again. Newsletters, radio shows, websites, etc. There are parts of this country where that side of the discourse on everyday local current events is completely nonexistent and it shows at the end of election day's counts.
Completely agreed. The right is blasting their message 24/7/365 through every media they can buy, while the left seems content to sit quietly except for one month every four years. And then wonders why they can't make in-roads with voters and why they are becoming toxic to an increasing portion of the population.
The viceral and personal hatred many voters feel for Clinton, Wynn, and Trudeau, isn't random. It's the result of literally years of sustained propaganda efforts by the right.
By your definition, you get abherent results like, say, a 99% tax rate on the first $50k people earn and a 1% rate on everything above that is progressive, because the more you earn, the more you pay: someone earning $50k a year only pays $49,500 in taxes but someone earning $1M/year will pay $59,000 in taxes.