Greece, U.K., U.S., WORLD WIDE, Income Taxes are CALLED PROGRESSIVE even though the SAME RATE is

[supraTruth]

is applied to the upper middle class family as the MULTI-BILLIONAIRE. So in ACTUALITY they are REGRESSIVE for the upper middle class.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/greece/greece_tax.asp :

Tax % The Tax Base (EURO)
0 1-12,000
18 12,001-16,000
24 16,001-22,000
26 22,001-26,000
32 26,001-32,000
36 32,001-40,000
38 40,001-60,000
40 60,001-100,000
45 100,001 and over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_tax :

Rate Dividend income Savings income Other income (inc employment) Band (above any personal allowance)
Lower rate N/A 10% N/A £0 - £2440
applies only if total income falls in this band
Basic rate 10% 20% 20% £0 - £37,400
Higher rate 32.5% 40% 40% over £37,400
Additional rate 42.5% 50% 50% over £150,000

Rather than calling for AUSTERITY which only begets MORE AUSTERITY, nations should be initiating REAL PROGRESSIVE TAX REFORM with LOWER rates for the upper middle class & MULTIPLE GRADUATED rates ALL the way up to those making BILLIONS.

An EXAMPLE of a TRULY PROGRESSIVE Income Tax System would be:

http://supratruth.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864039-a-proposal-for-real-tax-reform

[indurancevile]

1. knr

[supraTruth]

2. knr means what?

Please educate me.

[hifiguy]

3. Kicked 'n' Recommended

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[supraTruth]

4. "Recommended" is good; but a few MORE REPLIES might help the message spread to the media & CONgress

& W.H.

THANKS so much.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I wouldn't CAPITALISE words that I don't understand, if if were you

like 'REGRESSIVE'. 'Regressive' means the rate is less for higher earners, not just the same.

And your example tax rates are pretty, but would bring in far too little in taxes.

£150,000, in the UK, is roughly the top 1%: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-5.pdf

It's really not worth having multiple rates for tiny percentages of the population. Especially when your example maxes out at 49%, ie less than the rich already pay in the UK.

[supraTruth]

6. After checking the definition as I learned it, U seem to be out voted:

What Does Regressive Tax Mean?
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp#ixzz1VWe3VxnG

NOT sure my tax examples < http://supratruth.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864039-a-proposal-for-real-tax-reform > "would bring in far too little in taxes" IF WE ALSO STOP ALL WARS (INCLUDING THE DRUG WAR), BRING OUR TROOPS HOME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, CEASE FOREIGN MILITARY AID, & SLASH DEFENSE WASTE.

FINALLY, kind of silly to be sweating the 1% difference I gave for an EXAMPLE of a Tax Rate System for US that U compared to the existing U.K. Rate. Perhaps they DO NEED to cut back on their CONtributions to ROYALTY.

Thanks though for helping keep the discussion of this important subject from slipping into bulletin board oblivion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. No, I'm glad of the chance to correct you

since education is a good thing. As your link goes on to say:

Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it.

Since income tax is worked out on a person's income, the situation of its base being "a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget" cannot arise - it is the budget. So, for instance, a UK taxpayer who earns £150K pays:
(20%*£37,400)+(40%*(£150,000-£37,400))=£7,480+£45,040=£52,520, or 35.013% of their taxable income
Earning £200K, they pay £52,520+(50%*(200,000-150,000))=£77,520, or 38.76%
Earning £400K, they pay £53,520+(50%*(400,000-150,000))=£177,520, or 44.38%
and so on. The percentage paid will increase with income, approaching 50% as more and more of their income falls in the 50% bracket, but never quite reaching it. That is why it is not 'regressive'. At most, you can say the rate is flat above £150K. But, as I say, that's the top 1% of earners - not, I would suggest, the 'upper middle class'.

How much less, would your income tax rates bring in? If you want to be able to use them as an example, you ought to try to work this out, roughly - get hold of some statistics for the distribution of income among Americans and make an estimate. Then you'd know if the defense cuts (which sound pretty sensible to me, with or without changes in the income tax system) would offset them.

[supraTruth]

9. Well, the central point of my post was to make the case that the top rate WORLD WIDE

is the same from the lowest income that it starts all the way up to the EXTREME HIGHEST & therefore, while that top rate may be called "flat" by those who want to keep it that way, it is just as REGRESSIVE as the examples U & the link list.

After reviewing the U.K's. Tax System a little closer, I concede that it is much too complex for my simple example.

However, I still believe my point applies to Greece & US.

In our particular case, our top rate is a "flat" 35% for families with an income of $379,651 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States > all the way up to MULTIPLE BILLIONS (a hedge fund manager in 2009 had a gross income of $4.4BILLION).

& since the bushCO Tax Cuts of 2003, those with income derived from "Long-term Capital Gains" are taxed at only 15% for THAT income, a TRULY REGRESSIVE Income Tax Rate.

While I agree that the rates I gave/give as an example of a TRULY PROGRESSIVE Income Tax System < http://supratruth.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864039-a-proposal-for-real-tax-reform > may result in lower taxes for MOST of US, & the higher taxes for the remaining upper 2% may not totally make up the difference (without the distribution of each income level data that I have not found as of yet & am lacking the resources or time to pursue alone), they would at least give US all the comfort that the system would be fairer than it has been to date since the balance was so drastically shifted in the 1980's. And the lower taxes on the MOST of US would be a stimulus itself for our economy & the generation of revenue.

And with the spending cuts I have suggested, we should be just fine in a decade or so, w/o downgrading our Social Safety-Nets, even as we enter an era of baby boomers stressing the system for the next 20 to 30 years, IF we eliminate the Income Cap for S.S. Payroll Taxes.

Those spending cuts I have suggested could be used to strengthen Medicare while also helping to balance our budget.

Without the fairness of the reforms of our Tax System that I have suggested, I can see only doom for our nation as we devolve into a period where MOST AMERICANS will be as DIRT POOR as MOST were for MOST OF THE HISTORY of our country BEFORE Social Security & unions.

[Angry Dragon]

8. kick