5 ms·

Wealth should be taken into account when income tax is calculated. It's not fair that someone who earns 100k with no assets pays as much tax as someone who ear

Wealth should be taken into account when income tax is calculated. It's not fair that someone who earns 100k with no assets pays as much tax as someone who earns 100k but also inherited a 1mn house and has a whole load of cash reserves from not paying rent/mortgages for years. It's doubly not fair when the wealthier individual can divert most of their salary into a pension and not pay tax on it, because they can afford to do it now. Someone's wealth should not be eroded by tax, but their earning power should be adjusted based on marginal dollar value.

crispyporkbites 6y ago
This has been downvoted, can someone add a counter-argument for this? I.e. why should someone with higher wealth be able to pay less tax (in absolute and relative figures) than someone with lower wealth?
- influx 6y ago
  How does one pay a wealth tax on an inherited house? Do they have to sell the house?
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    No you misunderstand- they only pay tax on income, but the % is based on their total wealth. Eg if I have a total net worth of 2mn, my income tax might be 50%, and if I have a total net worth of 0, my income tax could be just 10%. This would encourage people to earn more who have little now, and encourage people who have a lot to spend/scale back their earnings. Ideally it would lower the gap between lower and middle class people.
- dahdum 6y ago
  Possibly because your example penalizes frugal savers, or that your concern is focused on people making $100k+/yr.
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    Frugal savers don’t really help the economy though. If we all were frugal nothing really moves. And this would apply to people earning 10k as much as people earning 100k
    - erichocean 6y ago
      > Frugal savers don’t really help the economy though. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man really help the economy"
Applejinx 6y ago
"Someone's wealth should not be eroded by tax" Why not? They are paying for something. Should someone's wealth not be eroded by rent? The cost of food? Absolutely someone's wealth should be eroded by tax. If they're so damn clever they'll make more. If they're not, the erosion will quickly diminish along with the wealth, making their future efforts much more significant. Lazy shiftless wealth absolutely should be eroded. Erosion is the nice way: you can also try for the nasty way if you like.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  I think it’s hard to get people to vote for a tax that will take money they have already acquired away from them. Reducing their potential for future earnings seems a lot more realistic to me.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Most countries phrase it like this: you owe 30% tax on a presumed 4% gain on your 100K. That's an identical amount to a 1.2% tax on 100K, but phrased in a way that I think meets your objections.

crispyporkbites 6y ago

This has been downvoted, can someone add a counter-argument for this? I.e. why should someone with higher wealth be able to pay less tax (in absolute and relative figures) than someone with lower wealth?

influx 6y ago
How does one pay a wealth tax on an inherited house? Do they have to sell the house?
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  No you misunderstand- they only pay tax on income, but the % is based on their total wealth. Eg if I have a total net worth of 2mn, my income tax might be 50%, and if I have a total net worth of 0, my income tax could be just 10%. This would encourage people to earn more who have little now, and encourage people who have a lot to spend/scale back their earnings. Ideally it would lower the gap between lower and middle class people.
dahdum 6y ago
Possibly because your example penalizes frugal savers, or that your concern is focused on people making $100k+/yr.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  Frugal savers don’t really help the economy though. If we all were frugal nothing really moves. And this would apply to people earning 10k as much as people earning 100k
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > Frugal savers don’t really help the economy though. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man really help the economy"

Applejinx 6y ago

"Someone's wealth should not be eroded by tax" Why not? They are paying for something. Should someone's wealth not be eroded by rent? The cost of food? Absolutely someone's wealth should be eroded by tax. If they're so damn clever they'll make more. If they're not, the erosion will quickly diminish along with the wealth, making their future efforts much more significant. Lazy shiftless wealth absolutely should be eroded. Erosion is the nice way: you can also try for the nasty way if you like.

crispyporkbites 6y ago
I think it’s hard to get people to vote for a tax that will take money they have already acquired away from them. Reducing their potential for future earnings seems a lot more realistic to me.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Most countries phrase it like this: you owe 30% tax on a presumed 4% gain on your 100K. That's an identical amount to a 1.2% tax on 100K, but phrased in a way that I think meets your objections.