2 ms·
It’s not progressive because you’re unnecessarily giving rich people money. Is it that hard to understand? No rich person will have 100% taxation, thus they hav
by endisneigh 3y ago
It’s not progressive because you’re unnecessarily giving rich people money. Is it that hard to understand? No rich person will have 100% taxation, thus they have benefited unnecessarily from your scheme. Simply give poor money people exclusively.
- skinnymuch 3y agoThis concept is for a wealth tax and/or income tax (one would have to pass below both barriers to get the tax credit and/or loan repayment) that goes up to 100% for this specific money via specific avenues. You can’t hand wave away a policy proposal with “no rich person will have 100% taxation”. Since it’s a tax credit and it’s getting taxed immediately. Rich people won’t be getting the money. > Simply give poor money people exclusively. I guess we just have to disagree. I assume you’re too liberal? I come from a leftist perspective. For me policy, end results, class, and material changes are more important than liberal progressive mentality of a charity/welfare state of affairs. Also you stated no rich person pays 100% taxes yet you’re stating something that never happens too: poor people exclusively getting money.