> I know perfectly well how progressive taxes work.
It’s very obviously that you do not.
The point of my original post was that most people making average wages will not necessarily pay more taxes if social services increase. If the taxes are progressive taxes that is definitionally true.
A progressive tax is a tax where the greatest tax burden falls on those with the greatest ability to pay the tax. That is typically on those making more than average.
A regressive tax is a tax where the greatest tax burden falls on those with the least ability to pay the tax. That is typically on those making less than average
You keep bringing up (often false or tenuous) examples of regressive taxes. There are examples of regressive taxes in Europe and elsewhere, I don’t dispute this. This does not undermine my point.
There are also examples in Europe and elsewhere where progressive taxes have been successfully implemented. My original post was pointing this fact out.
There is no point in moving on to any of my more complex points until you demonstrate that you comprehend this.
Do you understand why giving examples of regressive taxes in Europe does not undermine my position that taxes to pay for social services should be progressive?
> I know perfectly well how progressive taxes work.
It’s very obviously that you do not.
The point of my original post was that most people making average wages will not necessarily pay more taxes if social services increase. If the taxes are progressive taxes that is definitionally true.
A progressive tax is a tax where the greatest tax burden falls on those with the greatest ability to pay the tax. That is typically on those making more than average.
A regressive tax is a tax where the greatest tax burden falls on those with the least ability to pay the tax. That is typically on those making less than average
You keep bringing up (often false or tenuous) examples of regressive taxes. There are examples of regressive taxes in Europe and elsewhere, I don’t dispute this. This does not undermine my point.
There are also examples in Europe and elsewhere where progressive taxes have been successfully implemented. My original post was pointing this fact out.
There is no point in moving on to any of my more complex points until you demonstrate that you comprehend this.
Do you understand why giving examples of regressive taxes in Europe does not undermine my position that taxes to pay for social services should be progressive?