Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Show your support for what this community means to you:


Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)



Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Take a look around and join the community. Have a topic? Join us and start a thread.

Blue State exodus

124

Comments

  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Posts: 38,189
    Swaye's Wigwam 25000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    CHRIST
    CirrhosisDawgMikeDamoneUWhuskytskeetDuckHHunterisafag
  • Purple_PillsPurple_Pills Posts: 529
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Comments Fourth Anniversary
    AZDuck said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    No they don't. There is a clearly defined definition of "progressive" and "regressive" tax regimes. Here it is:

    Progressive Taxes
    A progressive tax is simply one approach to determining who pays what amount in their taxes. It isn’t about initiating reform, but rather an attempt to ensure taxation is “fair” to all payers.

    A progressive tax system takes into account ability to pay, setting rates based on income. That is, as income (or general wealth) goes up, so does the tax rate; as a percentage of income, poorer individuals tend to pay less, and wealthier or higher-earning individuals pay more.



    In theory, this kind of system can apply to individual incomes as well as transactions, but it tends to show up more in the form of income taxes—hence, talk about the different income brackets in America.

    Regressive Taxes
    Not many business owners raise and lower their prices according to the wealth of each customer. It is much simpler for prices to be set across the board for goods and services, regardless of who is shopping for them.

    That is essentially the basis for regressive taxes. A regressive tax does not take into account an individual’s income level or ability to pay, but it is not exactly the opposite of a progressive tax. Frequently, this is seen when the tax is applied to transactions—like a sales tax—and increases the total cost of something. Because that same uniform fee represents a larger proportion of net wealth for the poor, and a smaller share of the total wealth for richer individuals, the impact is felt differently.



    A flat, across-the-board amount charged to everyone can make for easy accounting, but it also leads to people paying a different rate of their total wealth in taxes. Again, fairness is relative and depends on where policymakers—and the tax professionals advising them—are putting their focus: the tax rate, or total taxes paid.



    In economics, these are terms of art, not value judgments. Washington State has a very regressive tax structure. Oregon's is very progressive. Each has its merits and demerits.

    Washington's tax structure is more fair than Oregon's. Oregon's tax structure favors the wealthy and hurts the middle class and the poor looking to climb socioeconomic ranks.


    Washington's tax structure not only is more fair, it is also a more stable tax revenue system.

    Here in Washington I get to decide when and if I pay sales tax. I have a choice to forgo new clothes, electronics, etc. and invest that money to build and grow wealth. Those folks too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon do not have that freedom. Income tax = wealthy keeping the rest of us down.

    Income tax screws the little guy:

    http://papers.nber.org/tmp/11474-w24175.pdf
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Posts: 3,322
    2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes

    AZDuck said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    No they don't. There is a clearly defined definition of "progressive" and "regressive" tax regimes. Here it is:

    Progressive Taxes
    A progressive tax is simply one approach to determining who pays what amount in their taxes. It isn’t about initiating reform, but rather an attempt to ensure taxation is “fair” to all payers.

    A progressive tax system takes into account ability to pay, setting rates based on income. That is, as income (or general wealth) goes up, so does the tax rate; as a percentage of income, poorer individuals tend to pay less, and wealthier or higher-earning individuals pay more.



    In theory, this kind of system can apply to individual incomes as well as transactions, but it tends to show up more in the form of income taxes—hence, talk about the different income brackets in America.

    Regressive Taxes
    Not many business owners raise and lower their prices according to the wealth of each customer. It is much simpler for prices to be set across the board for goods and services, regardless of who is shopping for them.

    That is essentially the basis for regressive taxes. A regressive tax does not take into account an individual’s income level or ability to pay, but it is not exactly the opposite of a progressive tax. Frequently, this is seen when the tax is applied to transactions—like a sales tax—and increases the total cost of something. Because that same uniform fee represents a larger proportion of net wealth for the poor, and a smaller share of the total wealth for richer individuals, the impact is felt differently.



    A flat, across-the-board amount charged to everyone can make for easy accounting, but it also leads to people paying a different rate of their total wealth in taxes. Again, fairness is relative and depends on where policymakers—and the tax professionals advising them—are putting their focus: the tax rate, or total taxes paid.



    In economics, these are terms of art, not value judgments. Washington State has a very regressive tax structure. Oregon's is very progressive. Each has its merits and demerits.

    Washington's tax structure is more fair than Oregon's. Oregon's tax structure favors the wealthy and hurts the middle class and the poor looking to climb socioeconomic ranks.


    Washington's tax structure not only is more fair, it is also a more stable tax revenue system.

    Here in Washington I get to decide when and if I pay sales tax. I have a choice to forgo new clothes, electronics, etc. and invest that money to build and grow wealth. Those folks too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon do not have that freedom. Income tax = wealthy keeping the rest of us down.

    Income tax screws the little guy:

    http://papers.nber.org/tmp/11474-w24175.pdf
    It's not about your opinion, he's giving literal definitions.
    CirrhosisDawgRedRocketPurple_PillsAZDuckDuckHHunterisafag
  • Purple_PillsPurple_Pills Posts: 529
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Comments Fourth Anniversary

    AZDuck said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    No they don't. There is a clearly defined definition of "progressive" and "regressive" tax regimes. Here it is:

    Progressive Taxes
    A progressive tax is simply one approach to determining who pays what amount in their taxes. It isn’t about initiating reform, but rather an attempt to ensure taxation is “fair” to all payers.

    A progressive tax system takes into account ability to pay, setting rates based on income. That is, as income (or general wealth) goes up, so does the tax rate; as a percentage of income, poorer individuals tend to pay less, and wealthier or higher-earning individuals pay more.



    In theory, this kind of system can apply to individual incomes as well as transactions, but it tends to show up more in the form of income taxes—hence, talk about the different income brackets in America.

    Regressive Taxes
    Not many business owners raise and lower their prices according to the wealth of each customer. It is much simpler for prices to be set across the board for goods and services, regardless of who is shopping for them.

    That is essentially the basis for regressive taxes. A regressive tax does not take into account an individual’s income level or ability to pay, but it is not exactly the opposite of a progressive tax. Frequently, this is seen when the tax is applied to transactions—like a sales tax—and increases the total cost of something. Because that same uniform fee represents a larger proportion of net wealth for the poor, and a smaller share of the total wealth for richer individuals, the impact is felt differently.



    A flat, across-the-board amount charged to everyone can make for easy accounting, but it also leads to people paying a different rate of their total wealth in taxes. Again, fairness is relative and depends on where policymakers—and the tax professionals advising them—are putting their focus: the tax rate, or total taxes paid.



    In economics, these are terms of art, not value judgments. Washington State has a very regressive tax structure. Oregon's is very progressive. Each has its merits and demerits.

    Washington's tax structure is more fair than Oregon's. Oregon's tax structure favors the wealthy and hurts the middle class and the poor looking to climb socioeconomic ranks.


    Washington's tax structure not only is more fair, it is also a more stable tax revenue system.

    Here in Washington I get to decide when and if I pay sales tax. I have a choice to forgo new clothes, electronics, etc. and invest that money to build and grow wealth. Those folks too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon do not have that freedom. Income tax = wealthy keeping the rest of us down.

    Income tax screws the little guy:

    http://papers.nber.org/tmp/11474-w24175.pdf
    It's not about your opinion, he's giving literal definitions.
    "Progressive" and "regressive" are loaded political terms. I disagree with their use in the science of economics. In my political opinion, Washington has a more progressive (as in the most fair to the most, especially non-wealthy) tax system than Oregon (which favors old $).
    CirrhosisDawgAZDuckTierbsHsotBoobs
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Posts: 1,245
    250 Answers 1000 Comments 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes

    AZDuck said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    No they don't. There is a clearly defined definition of "progressive" and "regressive" tax regimes. Here it is:

    Progressive Taxes
    A progressive tax is simply one approach to determining who pays what amount in their taxes. It isn’t about initiating reform, but rather an attempt to ensure taxation is “fair” to all payers.

    A progressive tax system takes into account ability to pay, setting rates based on income. That is, as income (or general wealth) goes up, so does the tax rate; as a percentage of income, poorer individuals tend to pay less, and wealthier or higher-earning individuals pay more.



    In theory, this kind of system can apply to individual incomes as well as transactions, but it tends to show up more in the form of income taxes—hence, talk about the different income brackets in America.

    Regressive Taxes
    Not many business owners raise and lower their prices according to the wealth of each customer. It is much simpler for prices to be set across the board for goods and services, regardless of who is shopping for them.

    That is essentially the basis for regressive taxes. A regressive tax does not take into account an individual’s income level or ability to pay, but it is not exactly the opposite of a progressive tax. Frequently, this is seen when the tax is applied to transactions—like a sales tax—and increases the total cost of something. Because that same uniform fee represents a larger proportion of net wealth for the poor, and a smaller share of the total wealth for richer individuals, the impact is felt differently.



    A flat, across-the-board amount charged to everyone can make for easy accounting, but it also leads to people paying a different rate of their total wealth in taxes. Again, fairness is relative and depends on where policymakers—and the tax professionals advising them—are putting their focus: the tax rate, or total taxes paid.



    In economics, these are terms of art, not value judgments. Washington State has a very regressive tax structure. Oregon's is very progressive. Each has its merits and demerits.

    Washington's tax structure is more fair than Oregon's. Oregon's tax structure favors the wealthy and hurts the middle class and the poor looking to climb socioeconomic ranks.


    Washington's tax structure not only is more fair, it is also a more stable tax revenue system.

    Here in Washington I get to decide when and if I pay sales tax. I have a choice to forgo new clothes, electronics, etc. and invest that money to build and grow wealth. Those folks too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon do not have that freedom. Income tax = wealthy keeping the rest of us down.

    Income tax screws the little guy:

    http://papers.nber.org/tmp/11474-w24175.pdf
    It's not about your opinion, he's giving literal definitions.
    "Progressive" and "regressive" are loaded political terms. I disagree with their use in the science of economics. In my political opinion, Washington has a more progressive (as in the most fair to the most, especially non-wealthy) tax system than Oregon (which favors old $).
    For fuck’s sake, they are defined terms of micro economics. “Progressive” taxes are structured on ability to pay (i.e. Oregon’s income tax) while “regressive” taxes are the same nominal amount regardless of ability to pay (i.e. WA State’s sales tax).

    Do you need a safe space from micro economics?
    UWhuskytskeetRedRocketAZDuckSourcesDuckHHunterisafag
  • Purple_PillsPurple_Pills Posts: 529
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Comments Fourth Anniversary

    AZDuck said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    No they don't. There is a clearly defined definition of "progressive" and "regressive" tax regimes. Here it is:

    Progressive Taxes
    A progressive tax is simply one approach to determining who pays what amount in their taxes. It isn’t about initiating reform, but rather an attempt to ensure taxation is “fair” to all payers.

    A progressive tax system takes into account ability to pay, setting rates based on income. That is, as income (or general wealth) goes up, so does the tax rate; as a percentage of income, poorer individuals tend to pay less, and wealthier or higher-earning individuals pay more.



    In theory, this kind of system can apply to individual incomes as well as transactions, but it tends to show up more in the form of income taxes—hence, talk about the different income brackets in America.

    Regressive Taxes
    Not many business owners raise and lower their prices according to the wealth of each customer. It is much simpler for prices to be set across the board for goods and services, regardless of who is shopping for them.

    That is essentially the basis for regressive taxes. A regressive tax does not take into account an individual’s income level or ability to pay, but it is not exactly the opposite of a progressive tax. Frequently, this is seen when the tax is applied to transactions—like a sales tax—and increases the total cost of something. Because that same uniform fee represents a larger proportion of net wealth for the poor, and a smaller share of the total wealth for richer individuals, the impact is felt differently.



    A flat, across-the-board amount charged to everyone can make for easy accounting, but it also leads to people paying a different rate of their total wealth in taxes. Again, fairness is relative and depends on where policymakers—and the tax professionals advising them—are putting their focus: the tax rate, or total taxes paid.



    In economics, these are terms of art, not value judgments. Washington State has a very regressive tax structure. Oregon's is very progressive. Each has its merits and demerits.

    Washington's tax structure is more fair than Oregon's. Oregon's tax structure favors the wealthy and hurts the middle class and the poor looking to climb socioeconomic ranks.


    Washington's tax structure not only is more fair, it is also a more stable tax revenue system.

    Here in Washington I get to decide when and if I pay sales tax. I have a choice to forgo new clothes, electronics, etc. and invest that money to build and grow wealth. Those folks too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon do not have that freedom. Income tax = wealthy keeping the rest of us down.

    Income tax screws the little guy:

    http://papers.nber.org/tmp/11474-w24175.pdf
    It's not about your opinion, he's giving literal definitions.
    "Progressive" and "regressive" are loaded political terms. I disagree with their use in the science of economics. In my political opinion, Washington has a more progressive (as in the most fair to the most, especially non-wealthy) tax system than Oregon (which favors old $).
    For fuck’s sake, they are defined terms of micro economics. “Progressive” taxes are structured on ability to pay (i.e. Oregon’s income tax) while “regressive” taxes are the same nominal amount regardless of ability to pay (i.e. WA State’s sales tax).

    Do you need a safe space from micro economics?
    Again, that's political lingo infecting economics.

    You say Oregon = "ability to pay". That's horseshit. They tax income, not wealth. A system that totally favors old money and the extreme wealthy.

    Meanwhile Washington's tax system is voluntary. I can choose if and when I expend sales tax. Instead of giving that money to the govt., I can instead invest and grow wealth. Washington does not tax nonprepared food so calculate that too into why Washington has the superior tax system for the working poor and middle class.
  • dfleadflea Posts: 2,585
    Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes






    "Progressive" and "regressive" are loaded political terms. I disagree with their use in the science of economics. In my political opinion, Washington has a more progressive (as in the most fair to the most, especially non-wealthy) tax system than Oregon (which favors old $).

    No. They are simple economic terms with meanings. If you want them to mean something different in your world, that's ok - but you should let others know before having discussions about tax policy first.

    If I pay the same amount of tax as Bill Gates when we decide to buy a toaster, that's a regressive tax. It's called regressive because Bill has more $$$ to pay taxes with than I do, yet we both paid $2.87 in taxes on the toaster.

    If you're not liking the way the terms are used in tax policy discussions, I'm not really sure who you should take it up with. Maybe just leave the terms out of your discussion and use something like "fair" or "equitable" instead. Then your meaning is clear without getting into a big conflict with well established and accepted economic terms.
    CirrhosisDawgRedRocketAZDuckMikeDamone
  • doogiedoogie Posts: 5,768
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    If you can’t afford a toaster, don’t buy one.
    CirrhosisDawgAZDuck
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Posts: 8,648
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes

    AZDuck said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.

    2001400ex said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country.

    HTH
    Disagree. An income tax is very regressive. It hinders lower class wealth building, by design. A wealth tax is the most progressive structure. The problem with a full wealth tax is the cost and ability to track all forms of wealth beyond real estate.

    Here in Washington aside from the regressive B&O tax has a pretty good system where we tax consumption aside from certain basic necessities and tax wealth in the form of real estate. Our tax system is why we continue to grow. It also is more stable in times of economic fluctuation. When recession hits WA govt. fares better than our contiguous Pacific coast peers.
    Da duq? Look up what a regressive tax structure is. It's clear you don't understand the concept.
    Definitions of progressive and regressive differ. I think progressing towards freedom is what we should strive for. Most people who use the term progress and label themselves progressive these days sadly are big govt. Fascists.


    If progressive = most fair then Washington's tax structure aside from the regressive B&O tax is easily one of the most progressive.

    If you are an ivory tower, mega corporation, 1%er, eliminate the middle class, enslave the poor, big govt. elitist then California or NY's tax system is what you view as the most progressive. Stop ignoring science, these systems are proven failures that only enrich the elite, corrupt, and their underclass cronies.
    No they don't. There is a clearly defined definition of "progressive" and "regressive" tax regimes. Here it is:

    Progressive Taxes
    A progressive tax is simply one approach to determining who pays what amount in their taxes. It isn’t about initiating reform, but rather an attempt to ensure taxation is “fair” to all payers.

    A progressive tax system takes into account ability to pay, setting rates based on income. That is, as income (or general wealth) goes up, so does the tax rate; as a percentage of income, poorer individuals tend to pay less, and wealthier or higher-earning individuals pay more.



    In theory, this kind of system can apply to individual incomes as well as transactions, but it tends to show up more in the form of income taxes—hence, talk about the different income brackets in America.

    Regressive Taxes
    Not many business owners raise and lower their prices according to the wealth of each customer. It is much simpler for prices to be set across the board for goods and services, regardless of who is shopping for them.

    That is essentially the basis for regressive taxes. A regressive tax does not take into account an individual’s income level or ability to pay, but it is not exactly the opposite of a progressive tax. Frequently, this is seen when the tax is applied to transactions—like a sales tax—and increases the total cost of something. Because that same uniform fee represents a larger proportion of net wealth for the poor, and a smaller share of the total wealth for richer individuals, the impact is felt differently.



    A flat, across-the-board amount charged to everyone can make for easy accounting, but it also leads to people paying a different rate of their total wealth in taxes. Again, fairness is relative and depends on where policymakers—and the tax professionals advising them—are putting their focus: the tax rate, or total taxes paid.



    In economics, these are terms of art, not value judgments. Washington State has a very regressive tax structure. Oregon's is very progressive. Each has its merits and demerits.

    Washington's tax structure is more fair than Oregon's. Oregon's tax structure favors the wealthy and hurts the middle class and the poor looking to climb socioeconomic ranks.


    Washington's tax structure not only is more fair, it is also a more stable tax revenue system.

    Here in Washington I get to decide when and if I pay sales tax. I have a choice to forgo new clothes, electronics, etc. and invest that money to build and grow wealth. Those folks too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon do not have that freedom. Income tax = wealthy keeping the rest of us down.

    Income tax screws the little guy:

    http://papers.nber.org/tmp/11474-w24175.pdf
    It's not about your opinion, he's giving literal definitions.
    "Progressive" and "regressive" are loaded political terms. I disagree with their use in the science of economics. In my political opinion, Washington has a more progressive (as in the most fair to the most, especially non-wealthy) tax system than Oregon (which favors old $).
    For fuck’s sake, they are defined terms of micro economics. “Progressive” taxes are structured on ability to pay (i.e. Oregon’s income tax) while “regressive” taxes are the same nominal amount regardless of ability to pay (i.e. WA State’s sales tax).

    Do you need a safe space from micro economics?
    Again, that's political lingo infecting economics.

    You say Oregon = "ability to pay". That's horseshit. They tax income, not wealth. A system that totally favors old money and the extreme wealthy.

    Meanwhile Washington's tax system is voluntary. I can choose if and when I expend sales tax. Instead of giving that money to the govt., I can instead invest and grow wealth. Washington does not tax nonprepared food so calculate that too into why Washington has the superior tax system for the working poor and middle class.
    No. Just no to everything.

    Bizarro world.
    CirrhosisDawg
  • doogiedoogie Posts: 5,768
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    dflea said:

    doogie said:

    If you can’t afford a toaster, don’t buy one.

    Quit fagging out the thread, assface, or I'll buy 2 fucking toasters and use one to beat you like a rented mule with.
    I’m not the one on a message bored complaining about how the tax on a toaster is Unfair because a different consumer can afford to pay more
    CirrhosisDawgAZDuckWoofDuckHHunterisafag
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 12,215
    10000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    doogie said:

    dflea said:

    doogie said:

    If you can’t afford a toaster, don’t buy one.

    Quit fagging out the thread, assface, or I'll buy 2 fucking toasters and use one to beat you like a rented mule with.
    I’m not the one on a message bored complaining about how the tax on a toaster is Unfair because a different consumer can afford to pay more
    Reading comprehension never was your strong suit.
    AZDuckMikeDamoneDuckHHunterisafag
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Posts: 1,245
    250 Answers 1000 Comments 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    doogie said:

    dflea said:

    doogie said:

    If you can’t afford a toaster, don’t buy one.

    Quit fagging out the thread, assface, or I'll buy 2 fucking toasters and use one to beat you like a rented mule with.
    I’m not the one on a message bored complaining about how the tax on a toaster is Unfair because a different consumer can afford to pay more
    Who is complaining?

    No one.

    Lots of people are hoping that @dflea beats your dense cranium between two toasters though. Regressive WA sales tax well worth it.
    AZDuckdfleaPitchfork51DuckHHunterisafag
  • doogiedoogie Posts: 5,768
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    what’s California’s severely underfunded public pensions worth?
    CirrhosisDawgAZDuck
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Posts: 1,245
    250 Answers 1000 Comments 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    doogie said:

    what’s California’s severely underfunded public pensions worth?

    30 years of payments starting today and assuming exactly no further gains or earnings. There is no federal recourse to any CA debt.

    Fuck off you faggot @doogie
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 12,215
    10000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    doogie said:

    what’s California’s severely underfunded public pensions worth?

    You have zero clue how pensions work.
  • dfleadflea Posts: 2,585
    Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    edited January 6
    doogie said:

    dflea said:

    doogie said:

    If you can’t afford a toaster, don’t buy one.

    Quit fagging out the thread, assface, or I'll buy 2 fucking toasters and use one to beat you like a rented mule with.
    I’m not the one on a message bored complaining about how the tax on a toaster is Unfair because a different consumer can afford to pay more
    Neither was I, you stupid fucking cunt. It was just an example of a regressive tax. Kind of like you're an example of a drippy fucking cunt.

    Pay fucking attention and you won't look like such a faggot next time.
    Pitchfork51DuckHHunterisafag
  • doogiedoogie Posts: 5,768
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    You’re whining that Bill Gates pays the same tax as you on a toaster.

    You then drop emotion over your arguement hoping to be shielded from your empty minded dribble because you know, feelings >>> facts.
  • dfleadflea Posts: 2,585
    Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    doogie said:

    You’re whining that Bill Gates pays the same tax as you on a toaster.

    You then drop emotion over your arguement hoping to be shielded from your empty minded dribble because you know, feelings >>> facts.

    No I wasn't.

    I guess you're unable to not be a complete faggot. You're just a whiny fucking bitch.

    And it's "drivel", you stupid fuck - not "dribble".

    Fucking kill yourself.
    CirrhosisDawgPitchfork51
  • salemcoogsalemcoog Posts: 6,653
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    dflea said:

    salemcoog said:

    RedRocket said:

    salemcoog said:

    RedRocket said:

    Tequilla said:

    RedRocket said:

    doogie said:

    The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.

    But Wyoming had the largest exodus in percentage terms. The article also conveniently forgets about strong growth blue states like WA and OR and doesn't mention that NY and CA actually had population growth because of immigration. But yeah blue states are fucked. If doogie had any balls he would relocate from his liberal strong hold to a bible belt red state.
    If you don't think that Washington or Oregon aren't going to have similar problems in 20-30 years when all the liberals that are making a shit ton of money today realize that politicians are coming for their money down the road and decide that being a snow bird living in a state where they aren't going to touch their money ... then I can't fucking help you.
    Snowbirds would still pay property and sales tax in WA. The rich liberals would have to sell their houses and move entirely but it's not going to happen and it wouldnt matter anyways because there would just be a new post millennial generation that would fill the gap. Only reason this would change is if businesses left WA or OR in droves which I also don't see happening.
    Get outta bed before 10 AM.... and then talk about your generation filling those gaps.


    Baby steps.
    Says the recovering meth addict who clearly rolled out of bed at 9:33.
    Yes, Cuz everybody rushes to HH when they get out of bed.

    You didn't go to UW to play deductive reasoning now did you?
    You didn't go to UW because you're too fucking stupid.

    So fuck yourself.
    And we surely know your concussed ass didn't.
    DuckHHunterisafag
Sign In or Register to comment.