3 ms·

> disproportionately reap the benefits of society This is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy products because you want/like them. The people who make th

by Alupis 2y ago

> disproportionately reap the benefits of society This is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy products because you want/like them. The people who make them are not disproportionately reaping benefits of society - they are reaping benefits of creating productive and desirable products. This view flirts with the idea that people "extract" wealth from the public, and that people are taken advantage of and/or manipulated into buying things. > I definitely don't feel this way and I am happy to pay my marginal rates. I just don't think they go far enough. People universally feel the government (local, state, federal) overwhelmingly wastes their tax money - yet so many people demand others pay more of their earned income to this uncaring ineffective machine. Tax receipts will never be enough for the government, and some people will continue to advocate plowing more of other people's money into the dark abyss. That's madness. > Do you propose a flat income tax or a flat wealth tax? Should capital gains be taxed as income? I propose a straight flat income tax percentage, without any deductions, credits, anything. While the percentage is fixed, the dollar amount obviously scales with income. Things like capital gains are solved this way by taxing the actual income you generated from the investments. I'm making up numbers, but say it's 20%. No matter if you earned $1 of income, or $1,000,000 - you pay 20%.

mulmen 2y ago
I think a person who gains $10,000,000.00 a year should be paying a higher tax than someone gaining $20,000.00 a year because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. When money moves value is created. The incentive should be to spread that wealth out, not to concentrate it. A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. That can’t be sustained without an enormous increase in income or some guarantees around living expenses. If I understand your definition of flat tax then capital gains would be untaxed as well so the wealthiest would pay even less. I understand the ideology. Taxes should be simple and equal. I just don’t think that ideology is worth defending. The price is too high when the benefits are so unclear.
- Alupis 2y ago
  > because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. This is a very problematic view of the world, and is not in line with reality. The people who earn $10MM a year make decisions that impact the lives of thousands (10's of thousands, or 100's of thousands) of employees. They are usually also directly responsible for millions of dollars in salaries every month. The myth that executives running a business don't earn their pay is silly. > A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. Also not true even a little bit. Most of the lower and middle class already pay more than 20%.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > The people who earn $10MM a year make decisions that impact the lives of thousands (10's of thousands, or 100's of thousands) of employees. But those decisions are worthless without people to carry them out. > They are usually also directly responsible for millions of dollars in salaries every month. So what? The salaries may add up to millions but what’s the denominator? This doesn’t justify a 100x multiplier on earnings. > Also not true even a little bit. Most of the lower and middle class already pay more than 20%. Are you including sales, property, and state income tax? Median income in the US is $80,610.00. The effective federal income tax rate at that income level is 16.23% but that assumes no deductions. In reality the median earner is going to take the standard deduction for $13,850.00 so they’re only going to pay federal income tax on $66,760.00 so their effective rate is 15.04%. This doesn’t consider student loan payments, mortgage interest deductions, or retirement account contributions, which will further lower the effective rate. This is for the median income. For lower incomes the effect is even more dramatic. So the only way most of the lower and middle class pay more than 20% is if you count all taxes paid. But that means for your flat 20%-no-deductions tax to be a better deal it has to come with an abolition of all other taxes. If so how do municipalities get funding? Does it all come from the federal government?

by Alupis 2y ago

mulmen 2y ago

I think a person who gains $10,000,000.00 a year should be paying a higher tax than someone gaining $20,000.00 a year because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. When money moves value is created. The incentive should be to spread that wealth out, not to concentrate it. A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. That can’t be sustained without an enormous increase in income or some guarantees around living expenses. If I understand your definition of flat tax then capital gains would be untaxed as well so the wealthiest would pay even less. I understand the ideology. Taxes should be simple and equal. I just don’t think that ideology is worth defending. The price is too high when the benefits are so unclear.

Alupis 2y ago
> because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. This is a very problematic view of the world, and is not in line with reality. The people who earn $10MM a year make decisions that impact the lives of thousands (10's of thousands, or 100's of thousands) of employees. They are usually also directly responsible for millions of dollars in salaries every month. The myth that executives running a business don't earn their pay is silly. > A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. Also not true even a little bit. Most of the lower and middle class already pay more than 20%.
- mulmen 2y ago
  > The people who earn $10MM a year make decisions that impact the lives of thousands (10's of thousands, or 100's of thousands) of employees. But those decisions are worthless without people to carry them out. > They are usually also directly responsible for millions of dollars in salaries every month. So what? The salaries may add up to millions but what’s the denominator? This doesn’t justify a 100x multiplier on earnings. > Also not true even a little bit. Most of the lower and middle class already pay more than 20%. Are you including sales, property, and state income tax? Median income in the US is $80,610.00. The effective federal income tax rate at that income level is 16.23% but that assumes no deductions. In reality the median earner is going to take the standard deduction for $13,850.00 so they’re only going to pay federal income tax on $66,760.00 so their effective rate is 15.04%. This doesn’t consider student loan payments, mortgage interest deductions, or retirement account contributions, which will further lower the effective rate. This is for the median income. For lower incomes the effect is even more dramatic. So the only way most of the lower and middle class pay more than 20% is if you count all taxes paid. But that means for your flat 20%-no-deductions tax to be a better deal it has to come with an abolition of all other taxes. If so how do municipalities get funding? Does it all come from the federal government?