Really? Who's ignoring who?
Did you read my post? First of all, your example assumes two things. (My, we are good at assumptions, aren't we?) Your example only works if rich people only spend a very small portion of their income, and poor people are taxed for every penny they spend. The first one is ridiculous, but if you want to post evidence to the contrary, go ahead. The second, as I clearly stated, depends on the location. Feel free to post where taxes on food etc are the fault of conservatives. I've lived in 5 states. Only 1, Alabama, taxed food. Three have state income taxes.

You are certainly right. I had in mind necessities. Since the data would tend to show poor people drink more alcohol and smoke more than rich people, can you post the evidence of either conservatives efforts to raise these taxes or liberals efforts to lower them? Betcha can't.

Most states? Not only do you need to provide a link, but you also need to show that these regressive taxes started by virtue of conservative leadership.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

because the complex analysis involved is not on the net. Read someon like Mikesell's analysis of state taxes (I can give you the citation if you like) and see if they are regressive or not. Economist generally agree they are, its simply not placed on the internet as is most academic research not there.

My example works if poorer people spend a higher preportion of their income on nessessities which are then taxed. I have never read any economic, statistical, or fiscal analysis that disagrees that they do spend far more of their total income on neccessities, there is universal agreement among those who study income that as income declines the amount of money you must spend to survive as the total preportion of your income goes up. My analysis assumed far more discretionary income for poorer groups than is reflected in the data.

But again this type of analysis is in journals and books not on the net.

Not from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen. They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.
(One guy makes 20K, the other 300K)
Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on 5% sales tax.

Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.

Poor Boy has 5 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car. Rich Boy hardly feels sales taxes.

Then run the numbers on a $30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy triples.
Sales tax is NOT a flat tax.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other examples of regressive taxes and fees.
Most per-unit taxes are regressive. For example, in real estate, a $1,000/yr per lot assessment fee is not uncommon in some areas. (for things like fire and sewer, etc) That's a fair chunk for a $200,000 home, hardly nothing for a $2,000,000 home in the same assessment district.

Here is an example of a per-unit tax also of the "sin tax" variety, combining two of the most regressive of all taxes. In California, a (say) $1/gallon of alcoholic beverage tax was enacted, then quickly repealed. The reason was, this was a major tax bite on a six-pack of beer, and almost nothing on a $150 bottle of champagne, or a $60 bottle of scotch or wine. Often sin-taxes are easy for politicians, not this time. There was a similar per-unit "snack tax" that met a similar fate because of potato chips v. caviar and such. These amplifications of the tax rate discrepancy work in conjunction with the normal regressive sales tax functions.

That outlines the basic ideas and theory of regressive taxation.


http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html

This is the conclusion of the very very economically conservative CATO (who never saw a rich man or a business they did not like)

Not surprisingly they go on to argue this should be ignored in favor of "efficiency"

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

Conservatives commonly argue that 40 to 50 percent of lower income people dont pay taxes (they really mean dont pay income taxes but its a minor technicallity). Which is why this is humerous.

So people are paying no taxes now, they will be paying taxes in the future, and they will pay less taxes in the future.

Makes sense to me

The link is in the above post.

Actually liberals are not only very selective, but misleading as well. Such as the tax cuts for the rich fairy tale. As shown below.

No matter how you measure it, the rich pay more in taxes whether as a percentage of income, total dollars, or a percentage of Americans. Liberals particularly forget about property taxes when discussing taxes in general.

And this would have absolutely no impact on the progressive tax rate and the fact that the rich pay more as a percentage of income than anyone else.

More spin by the left, I'd put this up there with your attempt to characterize rising income under Carter while ignoring the record inflation that came along with it. The federal government has nothing to do with state income tax rates or state excise taxes on gas, alcohol, etc. Therefore it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is federal taxes. If we want to reduce overall taxes then you should petition each and every state. Attempting to include it in the federal discussion is liberal spin.

Yeah I know these are only examples, of course they are highly spun examples tilted to favor your argument. Do you have any evidence that the poor or middle class pay such a differential if ANY differential exists? It is reasonable to assume the middle class and rich spend more non-discretionary and thus would pay more in taxes as percentage because they are buying more, this would make up for the difference in your very liberal example. Joe Rich guy likely has a boat, a larger mortgage with higher property taxes, etc.

More spin, taxes are based on total income not discretionary versus non-discretionary because it is irrelevant to the argument. We do not have a system where the government, or anyone else for that matter, determines what is and isn't necessary. It also ignores the fact that the rich pay taxes on that income via spending on other goods, not that it matters because the whole point is irrelevant anyway.

We don't because it's irrelevant to the discussion. At least the above is. And you are of course incorrect in your basic assumption because many conservatives focus on these taxes. Mitt Romney has attempted to roll back state income taxes as voted on by the citizens of the state. Democrats have resisted this because, well...like most dems they think they know what's better for people than they do. I guess we can call this argument the strawman of your post.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

In all fairness, the government does a lot more to protect the interests of the wealthy than the poor, so why shouldn't the wealthy foot the total bill?

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

You got a bite, Barney. Now reel him in!

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

With the exception of those who own large corporations, no one should have to pay fed income tax.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I'd just like to add the fact that they are willing to hand out 0% interest loans to the government year after year speaks volumes about the generosity of America's lower classes.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

what we spend on social security, medicare, welfare, medicaid, prescription drugs, unemployment, school grants, minority hiring programs, etc etc says otherwise.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.