4 ms·

The problem is that when you are from a poor background, you will have difficult time saving money for a new house if you chose a path of working hard, getting

The problem is that when you are from a poor background, you will have difficult time saving money for a new house if you chose a path of working hard, getting educated and then getting a good job. All because of progressive tax, that is being sold to public as tax on the rich, but reality is that it prevents people from escaping poverty and makes sure people don't grow beyond a certain point. The rich on the other hand don't pay the same taxes as anyone else - they have money to get around any system that is put in place. I think the first step should be removing the higher tax bracket, so that people can save money quicker. For example: If there is 0% tax up to 10k 20% up to 40k 40% from 40k And you got a good job and want to live like your colleagues, likely your costs of living will take up all salary up to 40k. Then above that for any 1000 you make, you have to give 400 to the state. Let's say you make 60k. So 20k will be taxed at 40%. It will take you over 8 years to save 100k. If 40% bracket was removed, then it would only take you around 6 years to save. So the difference is 2 years of sacrifice. If you had that extra money, you could spend 2 years on improving your skills, starting a business etc. For some reason I see both sides want to keep progressive tax - the left wants it, so that people keep being poor and therefore their clients. The right wants it, so that the rich amongst them can feel special - as the club is kept being small. I think how tax affects people from poor backgrounds should be looked into.

tonfreed 6y ago
I've certainly noticed this. I'm not from a rich family, I was raised on welfare and I've managed to work my way into finally being able to buy my own three bedroom home in my 30s. Have a lot of friends who don't make anything near what I do, but middle class/rich parents that were able to give them a kick along the road with a house deposit telling me "oh, I'm surprised you lived in a tiny two bedroom apartment on your wage". Knowing that I have to build my own retirement really makes me resent that so much of what I earn is going to the state to pay for what, a few shitty public art sculptures that no one likes, a crumbling public transport system that somehow has all the money in the world to pay for all sorts of diversity programs but not enough to actually deliver the services everyone thinks they should, and health department bureaucrats that are more interested in bogging healthcare providers down in paperwork than actually letting them tend to the sick. It's all very tiring.
HWR_14 6y ago
You're not arguing that progressive taxation is bad - you're arguing that taxes are not progressive enough. The point behind progressive taxation is that the rich can pay more (both practically they have more money and they miss the money less). If you are concerned, advocate to move the brackets up. 0% to 40k, 10% 40-80k, up to 50% 200k+ (these numbers were done to make my straight line math example easier, I don't know what the real numbers are.) Meanwhile, without progressive taxation, in the US, your income taxes would average $12,075 your FICA (which is flat) would average another $8,581. With an average income of ~61,000 that means everyone would write a check for 33% of their income to the government. This means those making more than around $250,000 a year would pay less, and other people would pay a lot more. I think you need to think about what the alternatives to progressive taxation look like. (If you want to talk about treating capital gains as normal income, that's a completely different topic that would advantage poor people.)
- varispeed 6y ago
  But the rich bypass income tax altogether. It does not apply to them.
  - HWR_14 6y ago
    The truly wealthy (e.g. Bezos) bypass income tax. The rich (e.g. surgeon making 400k/year) tend not to. But the last line I wrote was addressing this issue. We should prevent the wealthy from bypassing income tax. That is a different issue from what the taxes will look like.
mgerdts 6y ago
Where is $100k needed for a down payment on a house and income over $40k is taxed at 40%? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it. US Federal tax brackets are at https://www.irs.com/articles/2020-federal-tax-rates-brackets-standard-deductions/ https://www.irs.com/articles/2020-federal-tax-rates-brackets.... Notice that the standard deduction of $12400 for a single filer and $24800 for married filers means that the first $12400 or $24800 is not taxed. In contrast to that progressive tax, there are things like payroll tax (social security, medicare), sales tax, and all those taxes on phone and cable/internet bills that (proportionally) hit the poor much harder.

tonfreed 6y ago

I've certainly noticed this. I'm not from a rich family, I was raised on welfare and I've managed to work my way into finally being able to buy my own three bedroom home in my 30s. Have a lot of friends who don't make anything near what I do, but middle class/rich parents that were able to give them a kick along the road with a house deposit telling me "oh, I'm surprised you lived in a tiny two bedroom apartment on your wage". Knowing that I have to build my own retirement really makes me resent that so much of what I earn is going to the state to pay for what, a few shitty public art sculptures that no one likes, a crumbling public transport system that somehow has all the money in the world to pay for all sorts of diversity programs but not enough to actually deliver the services everyone thinks they should, and health department bureaucrats that are more interested in bogging healthcare providers down in paperwork than actually letting them tend to the sick. It's all very tiring.

HWR_14 6y ago

You're not arguing that progressive taxation is bad - you're arguing that taxes are not progressive enough. The point behind progressive taxation is that the rich can pay more (both practically they have more money and they miss the money less). If you are concerned, advocate to move the brackets up. 0% to 40k, 10% 40-80k, up to 50% 200k+ (these numbers were done to make my straight line math example easier, I don't know what the real numbers are.) Meanwhile, without progressive taxation, in the US, your income taxes would average $12,075 your FICA (which is flat) would average another $8,581. With an average income of ~61,000 that means everyone would write a check for 33% of their income to the government. This means those making more than around $250,000 a year would pay less, and other people would pay a lot more. I think you need to think about what the alternatives to progressive taxation look like. (If you want to talk about treating capital gains as normal income, that's a completely different topic that would advantage poor people.)

varispeed 6y ago
But the rich bypass income tax altogether. It does not apply to them.
- HWR_14 6y ago
  The truly wealthy (e.g. Bezos) bypass income tax. The rich (e.g. surgeon making 400k/year) tend not to. But the last line I wrote was addressing this issue. We should prevent the wealthy from bypassing income tax. That is a different issue from what the taxes will look like.

mgerdts 6y ago

Where is $100k needed for a down payment on a house and income over $40k is taxed at 40%? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it. US Federal tax brackets are at https://www.irs.com/articles/2020-federal-tax-rates-brackets-standard-deductions/ https://www.irs.com/articles/2020-federal-tax-rates-brackets.... Notice that the standard deduction of $12400 for a single filer and $24800 for married filers means that the first $12400 or $24800 is not taxed. In contrast to that progressive tax, there are things like payroll tax (social security, medicare), sales tax, and all those taxes on phone and cable/internet bills that (proportionally) hit the poor much harder.