2 ms·
You can't raise 3 trillion in taxes on the US economy to support that kind of program. People would see their taxes double and they'd flip the fuck out.
by fweespeech 11y ago
You can't raise 3 trillion in taxes on the US economy to support that kind of program. People would see their taxes double and they'd flip the fuck out.
- danieltillett 11y agoMost people would not see any net increase in taxes, but the wealthy would certainly see a massive rise - hence why I suggested it is impossible politically.
- fweespeech 11y agoThe wealthy don't have a 3 trillion income for you to tax. http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ > There is no dispute that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States for the past four decades. The share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012. https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm Total household income is only ~13 trillion. So even if you took 100% of their income, the numbers wouldn't work. Pretty much the only way to make that work is to tax people down to the $75,000 or so level.
- danieltillett 11y agoSure you would have to tax everyone, but once you discount out the actual base income (pay $10,000 or less in tax, get $10,000 in base income) then most people would be ahead.
- fweespeech 11y agoSo now its we have to tax everyone? Okay. You've basically gotta take half of the household income in the country to make your plan work. That isn't happening.