I suppose I should have added sarcasm symbols (&&&), or I don't understand your point, Pash. The guy's quote (Anderson) makes no sense. At what point does a sales tax become not regressive when looking at the overall tax burden? Unless you can prove that there is a point of wealth where Kansan's suddenly start spending a higher percentage of income than would a poor person, I don't follow. The more money you have, the less you need to spend as a percentage of income, thus regressively impacting those who spend higher percentages of their income or wealth on goods and services (the poor).bobbyhawks wrote:This is the kind of quote Stephen Colbert lives for. I suppose that poor Kansans are somehow able to stop spending money in efforts to save on taxes? And rich/poor people who live on the State Line will still buy all of their goods in Kansas out of pride? People in my neighborhood growing up always crossed state lines for liquor on Sunday and gasoline.KCMax wrote:Anderson said that though sales tax is often called a "regressive" tax that falls more heavily on the poor, "it's only regressive to a certain point."
“The more money you spend, the more sales tax you pay,” Anderson said.
The sales tax is only regressive to the point where it impacts the poor more than it does the rich. Other than that, not regressive at all.
It is my understanding and belief that using sales tax to collect money for the state in place of income tax (based on levels of income) is as regressive as it gets. Lower income individuals clearly have to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on goods and services, so they end up paying a higher aggregate percentage of income to taxes than would someone making a lot more. Add in the loophole for JOCO and WYCO folks to buy the same good for a lower tax burden in Missouri, and suddenly you have reached a new level of bottom as far as state revenue is concerned. Businesses may be excited to locate in Kansas, but customers may not be happy to pay Kansas sales taxes.