8 ms·

So throw a couple extra bones to the poors and maybe the race thing will solve itself? Why tax the fucking rich? Academics and politicians need to change the me

So throw a couple extra bones to the poors and maybe the race thing will solve itself? Why tax the fucking rich? Academics and politicians need to change the message to simply that: tax the rich. You can't fix one extreme without addressing the opposite extreme, in this case. Tax the rich and less tax for the poor (everyone else).

JimtheCoder 3y ago
"Tax the rich and less tax for the poor" I could be wrong, but don't the poor pay very little tax anyways?
- prepend 3y ago
  Yes and no. The “poor” may very little to no income tax. But the poor pay sales tax on almost everything they buy and that’s a flat 7-12% and so is really regressive. Although this is skipped for items paid for with government food assistance (eg, SNAP). And if you’re working poor (ie making $20k/year) you’re paying 7.5% in payroll taxes to cover social security and Medicare. This is also flat and so regressive. You certainly pay less percentage and less absolute taxes than the rich, but it’s still something. The challenge is that it’s hard to reduce these taxes any lower. Unless you want to change social security to a straight income redistribution program and not the pretend pension it is now and do something like the first $50k isn’t taxed and 10x the taxes on people from 50-200k (currently only 0-168k is taxed but almost half of people only make 50k so taking off the bottom drastically reduces tax revenue). Or you could remove sales tax on people who make less than $20k but that’s hard to monitor properly and rebates don’t help much with day to day needs. Tl:dr; the poor pay taxes, but not that much.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    >the poor pay sales tax on almost everything they buy . . . Although this is skipped for items paid for with government food assistance (eg, SNAP). That is technically correct, but misleading, because even when it is not paid for by government food assistance, the sale of food is not taxed--at least, it is not in any of the 4 US states I've lived in.
    - prepend 3y ago
      Lots of food in my state is taxed. I’m not sure how they determine what is taxed and isn’t as the cashier does it all for you automatically. But I think things like fruit and diapers are not taxed, but processed foods are. But I think the important part is that poor people spend a larger percent of their income on things with sales tax than wealthy so sales tax impacts them more significantly. Thats what I meant t saying it’s regressive [0]. [0] https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/regressive-sales-tax-infographic/ https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/regressive-sales-tax-infogr...
      - hollerith 3y ago
        Are you sure the basic rule isn't that if the food it is intended to be consumed at the seller's place of business, it is taxed? That's how it works in California. (As an exception, carbonated beverages are taxed.) Specifically, food from the "hot bar" in a supermarket is taxable, whereas a can of ravioli for instance, is not taxable even though it is a processed food by almost anyone's definition.
        prepend 3y ago
        I just looked it up and groceries are a lower rate (1% instead of 4%) from the state but there are local sales taxes of 2-5% depending on city and county. Prepared food like the food bar is full sales tax.
        hollerith 3y ago
        Huh. I am suprized that voting to tax food wasn't political suicide for the state legislators.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  They do, and it's progressive, but the trick is so do the rich because they make all their money on capital gains and that's a lower rate. It's really the middle class to honest small business owner level that gets hosed on income taxes, make enough money to pay a good bit of taxes but not enough to have exotic tax shelters and the really creative accountants.
  - Pigalowda 3y ago
    These tools blabbering about “tax the rich” don’t have real jobs, assets, or a brain. The only thing the political class will be OK with doing is raising taxes on the middle - and that’s it. People who call for higher taxes with our two party system are my enemy. They can eff off. And raising capital gains taxes? What so they can screw over the middle again when they retire and have to intermittently sell off? It’s absurd.
    - Danjoe4 3y ago
      95% of people are astoundingly ignorant of how our tax system actually works. Once you get into a moderately advanced investment/tax strategy and start looking into forming an S Corp, tax advantaged accounts, etc. you realize how the rich really avoid taxes. "Tax the rich" only gets politicians to move around the income brackets and punish high-earning, honest professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Numbskulls who have never even filed a 1040 can't comprehend that the mega rich do not derive the majority of their wealth from income. We should simplify our tax system to eliminate sophisticated tax strategies and level the playing field. Income tax should be reduced overall.
      - Detrytus 3y ago
        Income tax should be abolished completely, since it is immoral. Government should derive their tax income from taxing corporations. And the best way to avoid any "tax optimization" schemes is to tax revenue, not profit. You run a business? 1-5% of your revenue goes to IRS, and you can do whatever you want with the rest. This would also have a nice side effect of reducing cost of accounting services since without tax avoidance schemes 90% of accounting work goes away.
- kmos17 3y ago
  The poor pay taxes through sales and payroll taxes, so it’s not just income tax, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that it represents a larger share of their income than it does to rich people. Most billionaires don’t even earn money from a salary, but instead from lower taxed capital gains. But reducing the argument to rich vs. poor also misses out how unfair the tax system is to the middle class of wage earners in the US.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Lol no. Poor heads of households pay less income taxes, but regressive taxes always target them. Hell, most states even extract fees from benefit payments! Why? You can easily compel compliance and there are millions more poor people tha. rich people. The way laws are structured today, the marginal dollar costs a lot to extract from a billionaire.
- alex7734 3y ago
  I don't know how it works in the US but in the EU the working class pay a lot more tax, proportionally, than the rich: In Spain if you work and you cost your company 26430 euros: - The company pays 6430 for social security (calculated as a % of your salary, so this is effectively your tax even if on paper it's the company that pays it.) - You pay 1270 for social security (on paper you pay it but the company gives it to the tax office directly) - You pay 2338 for income tax (on paper you pay it but the company gives most of it to the tax office directly) - You end up getting 16390 euros, or an effective tax rate of 38%. This goes up if you pick a higher salary, obviously. If you work and you cost your company 67000 euros: - The company pays 16300 for social security - You pay 3101 for social security - You pay 11582 - You end up getting 36016 euros, or an effective tax rate of 46%. If you're a freelancer and you work for yourself it's more or less the same but there's also a fixed tax that while not being very high it's hard to deal with when you're earning 0 when starting out. In practice most people just risk it and don't report their activity at first for this reason. But if you're truly rich, you don't work, you have assets that appreciate for you. Tax rate for capital gains is capped at 26% no matter how many millions you're earning. This does not take into account that as a rich person you're going to be spending less of the money you earn than a poor person so you're paying less VAT (sales tax) as well.
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > The company pays 6430 for social security (calculated as a % of your salary, so this is effectively your tax even if on paper it's the company that pays it.) > - You pay 1270 for social security (on paper you pay it but the company gives it to the tax office directly) A contribution towards your pension is not a tax. It's a deferred payment. You will get that money later, with interest. > Tax rate for capital gains is capped at 26% no matter how many millions you're earning. Capital gains taxes charge you for the nominal increase in the value of the assets you sell, which means that you pay taxes for inflation. For example, if you bought an asset for 100EUR and sell it one year later for 103EUR, you will pay a capital gains tax on that 3EUR difference, even though you may not have actually obtained any benefit if inflation was 3% that year, so you are actually worse off than you were. > But if you're truly rich, you don't work, you have assets that appreciate for you You will pay taxes if they appreciate, but you won't get your money back when they depreciate. You are taking a risk. > This does not take into account that as a rich person you're going to be spending less of the money you earn than a poor person so you're paying less VAT (sales tax) as well If two people buy the same asset for the same price, they both pay the same amount in VAT. If the rich person ends up buying more stuff, they pay more VAT than the poor person. And at the end of the day, most of the income taxes obtained by the government are paid by the upper quintile of the population. Which is to say, the working class enjoys social services they can't afford thanks to a small percentage of the population that pays on their behalf. Not only that, Spain is one of the few countries in the world with a wealth tax, which starts once you reach 700k EUR, so it's not exactly taxing billionaires, either.
- graypegg 3y ago
  I think it varies. I’m not adding more details than the sibling comments, but due to the complexities of tax reduction, it’s more accessible to the rich to recover a greater percentage of their income via accounting tricks or unique investments, than people who are filing simple tax forms and investing in simple registered accounts. Difference in scale being a difference in kind. More money is easier to shelter if it has a legal origin.
- ashinybrowncoat 3y ago
  Define poor. I would call poor anything less than a 11 figure income so the definition of poor is subjective in and of itself. The relative difference in wealth should not so great so throwing a bone to the poors is only using a band-aid to triage a gaping wound that has been bleeding for a very long time. When I say "tax the rich" I am not talking about using current our current tax system. Whaty I am really saying is "make the people who exploit others pay for the exploitation." Watching rich get richer while poors get poorer is sickening and defending the rich is also sickening to hear.

JimtheCoder 3y ago

"Tax the rich and less tax for the poor" I could be wrong, but don't the poor pay very little tax anyways?

prepend 3y ago
Yes and no. The “poor” may very little to no income tax. But the poor pay sales tax on almost everything they buy and that’s a flat 7-12% and so is really regressive. Although this is skipped for items paid for with government food assistance (eg, SNAP). And if you’re working poor (ie making $20k/year) you’re paying 7.5% in payroll taxes to cover social security and Medicare. This is also flat and so regressive. You certainly pay less percentage and less absolute taxes than the rich, but it’s still something. The challenge is that it’s hard to reduce these taxes any lower. Unless you want to change social security to a straight income redistribution program and not the pretend pension it is now and do something like the first $50k isn’t taxed and 10x the taxes on people from 50-200k (currently only 0-168k is taxed but almost half of people only make 50k so taking off the bottom drastically reduces tax revenue). Or you could remove sales tax on people who make less than $20k but that’s hard to monitor properly and rebates don’t help much with day to day needs. Tl:dr; the poor pay taxes, but not that much.
- hollerith 3y ago
  >the poor pay sales tax on almost everything they buy . . . Although this is skipped for items paid for with government food assistance (eg, SNAP). That is technically correct, but misleading, because even when it is not paid for by government food assistance, the sale of food is not taxed--at least, it is not in any of the 4 US states I've lived in.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Lots of food in my state is taxed. I’m not sure how they determine what is taxed and isn’t as the cashier does it all for you automatically. But I think things like fruit and diapers are not taxed, but processed foods are. But I think the important part is that poor people spend a larger percent of their income on things with sales tax than wealthy so sales tax impacts them more significantly. Thats what I meant t saying it’s regressive [0]. [0] https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/regressive-sales-tax-infographic/ https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/regressive-sales-tax-infogr...
    - hollerith 3y ago
      Are you sure the basic rule isn't that if the food it is intended to be consumed at the seller's place of business, it is taxed? That's how it works in California. (As an exception, carbonated beverages are taxed.) Specifically, food from the "hot bar" in a supermarket is taxable, whereas a can of ravioli for instance, is not taxable even though it is a processed food by almost anyone's definition.
      - prepend 3y ago
        I just looked it up and groceries are a lower rate (1% instead of 4%) from the state but there are local sales taxes of 2-5% depending on city and county. Prepared food like the food bar is full sales tax.
        hollerith 3y ago
        Huh. I am suprized that voting to tax food wasn't political suicide for the state legislators.
willcipriano 3y ago
They do, and it's progressive, but the trick is so do the rich because they make all their money on capital gains and that's a lower rate. It's really the middle class to honest small business owner level that gets hosed on income taxes, make enough money to pay a good bit of taxes but not enough to have exotic tax shelters and the really creative accountants.
- Pigalowda 3y ago
  These tools blabbering about “tax the rich” don’t have real jobs, assets, or a brain. The only thing the political class will be OK with doing is raising taxes on the middle - and that’s it. People who call for higher taxes with our two party system are my enemy. They can eff off. And raising capital gains taxes? What so they can screw over the middle again when they retire and have to intermittently sell off? It’s absurd.
  - Danjoe4 3y ago
    95% of people are astoundingly ignorant of how our tax system actually works. Once you get into a moderately advanced investment/tax strategy and start looking into forming an S Corp, tax advantaged accounts, etc. you realize how the rich really avoid taxes. "Tax the rich" only gets politicians to move around the income brackets and punish high-earning, honest professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Numbskulls who have never even filed a 1040 can't comprehend that the mega rich do not derive the majority of their wealth from income. We should simplify our tax system to eliminate sophisticated tax strategies and level the playing field. Income tax should be reduced overall.
    - Detrytus 3y ago
      Income tax should be abolished completely, since it is immoral. Government should derive their tax income from taxing corporations. And the best way to avoid any "tax optimization" schemes is to tax revenue, not profit. You run a business? 1-5% of your revenue goes to IRS, and you can do whatever you want with the rest. This would also have a nice side effect of reducing cost of accounting services since without tax avoidance schemes 90% of accounting work goes away.
kmos17 3y ago
The poor pay taxes through sales and payroll taxes, so it’s not just income tax, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that it represents a larger share of their income than it does to rich people. Most billionaires don’t even earn money from a salary, but instead from lower taxed capital gains. But reducing the argument to rich vs. poor also misses out how unfair the tax system is to the middle class of wage earners in the US.
Spooky23 3y ago
Lol no. Poor heads of households pay less income taxes, but regressive taxes always target them. Hell, most states even extract fees from benefit payments! Why? You can easily compel compliance and there are millions more poor people tha. rich people. The way laws are structured today, the marginal dollar costs a lot to extract from a billionaire.
alex7734 3y ago
I don't know how it works in the US but in the EU the working class pay a lot more tax, proportionally, than the rich: In Spain if you work and you cost your company 26430 euros: - The company pays 6430 for social security (calculated as a % of your salary, so this is effectively your tax even if on paper it's the company that pays it.) - You pay 1270 for social security (on paper you pay it but the company gives it to the tax office directly) - You pay 2338 for income tax (on paper you pay it but the company gives most of it to the tax office directly) - You end up getting 16390 euros, or an effective tax rate of 38%. This goes up if you pick a higher salary, obviously. If you work and you cost your company 67000 euros: - The company pays 16300 for social security - You pay 3101 for social security - You pay 11582 - You end up getting 36016 euros, or an effective tax rate of 46%. If you're a freelancer and you work for yourself it's more or less the same but there's also a fixed tax that while not being very high it's hard to deal with when you're earning 0 when starting out. In practice most people just risk it and don't report their activity at first for this reason. But if you're truly rich, you don't work, you have assets that appreciate for you. Tax rate for capital gains is capped at 26% no matter how many millions you're earning. This does not take into account that as a rich person you're going to be spending less of the money you earn than a poor person so you're paying less VAT (sales tax) as well.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > The company pays 6430 for social security (calculated as a % of your salary, so this is effectively your tax even if on paper it's the company that pays it.) > - You pay 1270 for social security (on paper you pay it but the company gives it to the tax office directly) A contribution towards your pension is not a tax. It's a deferred payment. You will get that money later, with interest. > Tax rate for capital gains is capped at 26% no matter how many millions you're earning. Capital gains taxes charge you for the nominal increase in the value of the assets you sell, which means that you pay taxes for inflation. For example, if you bought an asset for 100EUR and sell it one year later for 103EUR, you will pay a capital gains tax on that 3EUR difference, even though you may not have actually obtained any benefit if inflation was 3% that year, so you are actually worse off than you were. > But if you're truly rich, you don't work, you have assets that appreciate for you You will pay taxes if they appreciate, but you won't get your money back when they depreciate. You are taking a risk. > This does not take into account that as a rich person you're going to be spending less of the money you earn than a poor person so you're paying less VAT (sales tax) as well If two people buy the same asset for the same price, they both pay the same amount in VAT. If the rich person ends up buying more stuff, they pay more VAT than the poor person. And at the end of the day, most of the income taxes obtained by the government are paid by the upper quintile of the population. Which is to say, the working class enjoys social services they can't afford thanks to a small percentage of the population that pays on their behalf. Not only that, Spain is one of the few countries in the world with a wealth tax, which starts once you reach 700k EUR, so it's not exactly taxing billionaires, either.
graypegg 3y ago
I think it varies. I’m not adding more details than the sibling comments, but due to the complexities of tax reduction, it’s more accessible to the rich to recover a greater percentage of their income via accounting tricks or unique investments, than people who are filing simple tax forms and investing in simple registered accounts. Difference in scale being a difference in kind. More money is easier to shelter if it has a legal origin.
ashinybrowncoat 3y ago
Define poor. I would call poor anything less than a 11 figure income so the definition of poor is subjective in and of itself. The relative difference in wealth should not so great so throwing a bone to the poors is only using a band-aid to triage a gaping wound that has been bleeding for a very long time. When I say "tax the rich" I am not talking about using current our current tax system. Whaty I am really saying is "make the people who exploit others pay for the exploitation." Watching rich get richer while poors get poorer is sickening and defending the rich is also sickening to hear.