Posted on 09/21/2011 5:41:57 AM PDT by Puppage
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.
It is definitely true of sin taxes that they fall more heavily on poor people relative to income. I doubt it for bridge tolls, especially considering the relationship between car ownership and income.
You appear to be missing the point. Forget about trying to define "poor." Rather it is about income levels and the impact that a 50% increase in a bridge or tunnel toll has on people. Lower income people are going to feel the impact far more than those with higher incomes. If you must use the bridge or tunnel to commute to work, it could have a major impact on your discretionary income.
I’ve peeked at “The Power Broker” - huge book. It’s the story of Robert Moses who built many great things in NYC but destroyed the South Bronx and other neighborhoods in the process.
The Port Authority is one of the most corrupt entities in New York and New Jersey. Loathesome.
I had not heard that but no doubt it would be true. The PA Director at that time was a guy named Tobin and he viewed himself as the bi state god.
“You appear to be missing the point...Lower income people are going to feel the impact far more than those with higher incomes.”
That’s true, but it’s also true, like I said, of the income tax, which, as everyone knows, has progressive rates. Regression is not about felling the impact. Rich people are always going to feel the impact less, unless their the only ones being taxed.
their = they’re
“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.”
If this truly is the definition of regressive taxation, then I’m wrong. But I can’t believe, first of all, that there’s not a seperate category for flat rates. In fact, I know there is. I also can’t believe regression is determined by effective impact no matter what the rate, since that would, as I’ve explained, lump progressive taxes under the banner of regression, too.
That is truly the definition of regressive taxation.
Hope he wins, I’m tried of government raising fees in one area to support cost over runs in another. >>>
me too, the toll hike was noting but a major tax hike on the middle class and poor residents of NJ. This tax will haunt christie in the next election...cuomo didn’t care because most of the people crossing the gwb and the other bridges are from NJ and not NY, many are from bergen county.
and to add insult to injury, the AAA did a study and stated that most of the money is going towards building the new tower at the WTC and not for bridge repair and maintenance. The Port Authority should not put the toll money into real estate speculation, the tower may never be fully occupied and it should be against policy to put toll money into Port Authority real estate...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.