3 ms·

>put self through college working >Works 60 hour weeks, most Saturdays, some Sundays ... I don't give a damn about the 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps an

>put self through college working >Works 60 hour weeks, most Saturdays, some Sundays ... I don't give a damn about the 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work hard' virtue signaling. Half. He should pay half. So should everyone else above 400k / yr. The rich are able to succeed by virtue of the fact that we have schools, roads, other infrastructure. If you're in the top 1% of income, you should pay in the top 1% of taxes to help pay for all that. Mad about that? Maybe we should stop spending ~ 700B / yr on defense. We're surrounded by two friendly nations and large oceans. There's zero chance of conventional total war against Russia or China, and we can't defend against a nuclear exchange. Our military is a giant welfare program.

RhysU 6y ago
Why is $400K the morally correct number?
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  Rough ballpark for the 1% income in the US.
shans 6y ago
And while we are at this, I am very interested in another thought experiment. * Person 1: income $400k per year, lives in California -- must spend $1.5M+ to afford a 4 BR home for a family of 4 -- must spend $15 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws -- spends an average of $20 per person per meal, because of all the costs baked into the price of goods and services in the state -- spends 10 - 12% on state income tax but does not receive any direct benefits from state programs because of their income level (the only point being about the additional expense of it that is not a direct benefit, not that the state tax is unfair). -- spends 9% of all goods purchased on sales tax * Person 2: income $400k per year lives in TX * spends $700 - 800k on an equivalent or better home * spends an average of $12 - 15 per meal per person * can spend $10 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws * spends 0% on state income tax * spends a 6 - 7% on all goods purchased on sales tax Ignoring things like what the specific min wage levels should be, etc, etc, is cost of living something that should show up in "fair tax" owed? If the answer is no... I have a hard time seeing how any specific tax level could be considered fair (even after the argument of "well people should just move to another state"). If the answer is yes, then I have a hard time imagining how any federal income tax system could achieve the goal of "fairness". And perhaps getting rid of the income tax altogether (perhpas replaced by Universal or partial BI + national sales tax as one idea) would result in a much faire / progressive system.
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  400k+ is a high enough threshold that I'm confident it would not be too much of an imposition anywhere. A person living in SF or NYC chooses to live there. (Were I emperor, taxes would be much simpler and have much fewer exceptions)

RhysU 6y ago

Why is $400K the morally correct number?

wing-_-nuts 6y ago
Rough ballpark for the 1% income in the US.

shans 6y ago

And while we are at this, I am very interested in another thought experiment. * Person 1: income $400k per year, lives in California -- must spend $1.5M+ to afford a 4 BR home for a family of 4 -- must spend $15 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws -- spends an average of $20 per person per meal, because of all the costs baked into the price of goods and services in the state -- spends 10 - 12% on state income tax but does not receive any direct benefits from state programs because of their income level (the only point being about the additional expense of it that is not a direct benefit, not that the state tax is unfair). -- spends 9% of all goods purchased on sales tax * Person 2: income $400k per year lives in TX * spends $700 - 800k on an equivalent or better home * spends an average of $12 - 15 per meal per person * can spend $10 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws * spends 0% on state income tax * spends a 6 - 7% on all goods purchased on sales tax Ignoring things like what the specific min wage levels should be, etc, etc, is cost of living something that should show up in "fair tax" owed? If the answer is no... I have a hard time seeing how any specific tax level could be considered fair (even after the argument of "well people should just move to another state"). If the answer is yes, then I have a hard time imagining how any federal income tax system could achieve the goal of "fairness". And perhaps getting rid of the income tax altogether (perhpas replaced by Universal or partial BI + national sales tax as one idea) would result in a much faire / progressive system.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago
400k+ is a high enough threshold that I'm confident it would not be too much of an imposition anywhere. A person living in SF or NYC chooses to live there. (Were I emperor, taxes would be much simpler and have much fewer exceptions)