4 ms·

This argument is weak in that it only compares percentage alone, rather than qualifying that in terms of impact to the individual/family. A family that makes $2

This argument is weak in that it only compares percentage alone, rather than qualifying that in terms of impact to the individual/family. A family that makes $200,408 gross taxed at 18.38% is still left with $163,573. A family making $12,439 @ 9.78% only has $11,223 where every dollar counts in terms of trying to keep a roof overhead and bellies full. The wealthy have a higher tax burden because they have most of the money and have the most to gain from a smoothly operating society (which whether we like it or not, requires investment). I’m not even going to get into the disruptive nature of ultra wealthy people in a “free” society that is dominated by wealth more than any other attribute. I’m not saying the rich family’s needs are irrelevant, but I mean… come on; if we’re gonna advance an argument that beats around the bush of being fair, this one is DOA. I don’t enjoy paying taxes anymore than the next person, especially when so much of it is squandered and misappropriated, but I’ve been on both ends of my example.

hitpointdrew 3y ago
> the wealthy have a higher tax burden because they have most of the money Well duh. This isn't really an argument. This is one of those "facts" that is so obvious, yet people think it should be somehow shocking, like "90% percent of accidents happen 5 miles from the home", well no shit, you have to drive in the 5 mile radius to go anywhere, or to get back home. > A family that makes $200,408 gross taxed at 18.38% is still left with $163,573. A family making $12,439 @ 9.78% only has $11,223 where every dollar counts in terms of trying to keep a roof overhead and bellies full. And...what is your point? This is perfectly reasonable. Look generally speaking (of course there are outliers and edge cases), but the more money you make the more responsibility you have. A line cook doesn't have as much responsibly as a franchise manager, a franchisee manager doesn't have much responsibility as corporate district manager, etc. Why would anyone strive to have jobs with more responsibility, if you are just going to tax them to oblivion where a senior VP now takes home the same as line cook? Having the senior VIP take home much more money, is reasonable and fair. Ideally taxing income is generally immoral, IMO. A much fairer system would be to ditch income tax entirely and just have a VAT. But somehow people are deluded into thinking VAT is "regressive", which its not.

hitpointdrew 3y ago

> the wealthy have a higher tax burden because they have most of the money Well duh. This isn't really an argument. This is one of those "facts" that is so obvious, yet people think it should be somehow shocking, like "90% percent of accidents happen 5 miles from the home", well no shit, you have to drive in the 5 mile radius to go anywhere, or to get back home. > A family that makes $200,408 gross taxed at 18.38% is still left with $163,573. A family making $12,439 @ 9.78% only has $11,223 where every dollar counts in terms of trying to keep a roof overhead and bellies full. And...what is your point? This is perfectly reasonable. Look generally speaking (of course there are outliers and edge cases), but the more money you make the more responsibility you have. A line cook doesn't have as much responsibly as a franchise manager, a franchisee manager doesn't have much responsibility as corporate district manager, etc. Why would anyone strive to have jobs with more responsibility, if you are just going to tax them to oblivion where a senior VP now takes home the same as line cook? Having the senior VIP take home much more money, is reasonable and fair. Ideally taxing income is generally immoral, IMO. A much fairer system would be to ditch income tax entirely and just have a VAT. But somehow people are deluded into thinking VAT is "regressive", which its not.