This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Well by ufl

I guess there are two issues: (a) the definition of progressive/regressive and (b) the justification for progressive taxes.

If the taxes paid by an income group as a percentage of that income rises with the level of income the tax is progressive. If this falls as income rises the tax is regressive. Of course the categorization depends on a calculation of who actually pays a tax and economists have their own way of doing this.

The justification for progressive taxes is not usually based on fairness. Economists find this to be a slippery concept. The argument is utilitarian: Progressive taxes produce less pain for a given amount of revenue raised. The idea is that the reduction of utility (pain) caused by depriving someone whose income is $200,000 of $50,000 worth of consumption is less than the reduction of utility caused by depriving someone whose income is $40,000 of $5,000 worth of consumption.