4 ms·
OMG I hate this kind of dishonesty by governments (and companies). There should be no "employer taxes". That's money that otherwise could be going to the emplo
by cletus 6y ago
OMG I hate this kind of dishonesty by governments (and companies).
There should be no "employer taxes". That's money that otherwise could be going to the employer so all taxes and the like should be reported coming out of the employee's salary.
Example: the US has 6.2% Social Security taxes levied on both the employer and employee. This should be reported as 12.4/106.2 = 11.7% of the employee's income.
BTW companies do this too. Airlines charge fuel surcharges (there's no such thing; the fares are just more expensive). US ISPs are famous for things like "Infrastructure Surcharges" and other charges you can't avoid. The FTC/FCC should step in and make it illegal to underreport true costs with mandatory charges like these.
Another beef with the US government I have in particular is the "standard deduction". This is actually a way of hiding a regressive tax on lower income people. Think about it: you're eroding the value of itemized deductions but lower income people are disproportionately affected.
- marvin 6y agoAgreed. Try to make an argument up here that our tax burden is debilitating, and all you get in return is «our taxes are the same as every other country, 30% on average». Can be refuted in a debate, but of course the dishonest rhetoric reflects what people actually believe and vote.
- sgerenser 6y agoAgreed up until the last part. The standard deduction is progressive, it provides a much bigger benefit to lower income earners than it does to mid/high income earners.
- cletus 6y agoConsider a simplified tax system: - 10% of the first $100,000 - 20% of the remaining - The standard deduction is $20,000 Now consider three incomes: $40,000, $80,000 and $200,000. 1. $40,000 is $4,000 (10%) tax to $2,000 (5%) 2. $80,000 is $8,000 (10%) tax to $6,000 (7.5%) 3. $200,000 is $30,000 (15%) tax to $26,000 (13%) So on the face of it it seems progressive and would be if it wasn't for the fact that it offsets itemized deductions. Imagine each person above could deduct 25% of their income: 1. No change. 2. No change. 3. $50,000 deduction, which is an additional $30,000 of $6,000 in savings. So the highest income earners still get itemized deductions and both the standard and itemized deductions are offsetting a marginal higher tax rate. The point is that the "standard deduction" is (IMHO) dishonest. You can achieve a progressive tax system by... just having a progressive tax system.
- ChrisLomont 6y agoThe US does have a progressive tax system. Here's effective federal tax rates. Throw on inheritance tax on top of these and it gets extremely progressive. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-23-effectivetaxratesletter.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-...