4 ms·
The analogy I use is how people go shopping in a neighboring state for lower sales taxes, or buy a house in an inconvenient place for lower property taxes. Wea
by cloudjacker 10y ago
The analogy I use is how people go shopping in a neighboring state for lower sales taxes, or buy a house in an inconvenient place for lower property taxes.
Wealthier people are doing the same thing.
People get angry more so because they don't get the privilege to participate in those advantages. While simultaneously taking advantage of what they can.
- heartbreak 10y agoThe difference is that at one end of the spectrum people are taking advantages so that they can eat tonight, and the other end is taking advantages so that they can have a few million dollars more this quarter than last.
- bungle 10y agoWell, this picture is from Finland (a country with very small differences in incomes): http://hs10.snstatic.fi/webkuva/taysi/630/1460170330858?ts=537 http://hs10.snstatic.fi/webkuva/taysi/630/1460170330858?ts=5... Y-scale is the taxes paid X-scale is the income As you can see... people in middle class and lower play by the rules almost perfectly. Now the richest don't play anymore. There are those that play by the rules, but a lot of those that don't. Finland has a progressive income tax. So let's stop the bullshit that everything does it. This picture shows it clearly that only the richest are the assholes (in meaningful way).
- cloudjacker 10y agoAnd then there are jurisdictions that fund themselves primarily from offering incorporation services, instead of levying an income tax at all. The state needs to make better rules, obviously passive taxation has pitiful compliance outcomes.