6 ms·

>The complexity is a feature not a bug. If you have more complexity, you have more opportunities for loopholes. Those loopholes are currently used by those weal

>The complexity is a feature not a bug. If you have more complexity, you have more opportunities for loopholes. Those loopholes are currently used by those wealthy enough to hire creative firms to help you get through them Agreed that the complexity is a feature but it's not for the rich ( though the rich will take advantage of it, and why not? ) . It's mostly for the powers that be. If there were a 'flat' tax ( and one could argue what constitutes a flat tax) the rich will be more willing to pay that flat tax. I'd say complexity support a very large govt, keeping several people employed including accountants, tax software companies etc. It serves the parasite class.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
The tax brackets are not what make taxes complicated. Knowing how to categorize different types of income is what makes taxes complicated. The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. They only thing it would do would be to eliminate progressive taxation. In other words, the rich would pay less. The poor would pay more.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 1y ago
  This is exactly correct. That said, I'm quite surprised how many people struggle to understand how progressive tax bands/brackets work. It maybe doesn't help that the (right wing) media often portray them dishonestly (i.e. claiming that a 50% tax band starting at $100k/year means you would pay $50k/year in tax if you earn $100k/year)
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > portray them dishonestly Tangentially, the same motivated-disinformation occurs with Social Security. It's best-understood as an insurance-policy (OASDI is literally named that way) against dying poor and old/orphaned/disabled. With an insurance policy, it's normal for my month's premium to be spent on somebody else's current tragedy, it's normal for me to expect no cash if the Bad Thing never actually happens to me, and it's normal that there's no asset for me to pass on to my heirs. However wall-street bankers can't make tons of profits competing under that model, so instead they try to trick citizens into misunderstanding what the model is. They want people to think it's a government-managed investment account instead, where every person is filling an individual bucket of "their" money that will someday be tipped back out for them. With this deception, their job is much easier: They just need to say that they'll be a nicer manager of the accounts than the government is, because they'll give you more choices for managing "your" money. It's dishonest because the two things are fundamentally different in how they work and what they're good for.
- fn-mote 1y ago
  > The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. This is absolutely not true in the USA. Income from different sources is taxed differently. Example: The forms distinguish between short term capital gains, long term capital gains, and e.g., income from government bonds is taxed differently at lower levels of government.
- dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
  >The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. there are many way to 'define' a 'flat' tax. My way would be a fixed sum. Not a fixed rate. ( yes the rich pay the same as poor) This would ofcourse have it's own if/buts but it would eliminate 90%+ complexity. The ideal situation would be be no income tax and many other forms of taxation.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    A fixed sum is impossible. It would have to be so low that everyone could pay it, no matter how poor. It's basically a proposal to eliminate government (meaning anarchy, chaos, and inevitably the rise of some new order that will, of necessity, go back to a more rational system of taxation).
Terr_ 1y ago
> If there were a 'flat' tax [...] the rich will be more willing to pay That's just because moving from progressive-taxation to a flat-tax reduces how much they pay! The "simplicity" of the math done by their usual accounting firm that does their taxes for them is irrelevant by comparison. _________ To illustrate why the burden shifts, suppose the nation of Elbonia needs a constant $540 to operate, and it moves from a progressive tax to a flat tax. This year, progressive taxation, rising %: 90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 20% -> $2 per peasant. 10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 40% -> $36 per noble. Total collection is $540. Next year, flat tax, same % for all: 90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 30% -> $3 per peasant. 10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 30% -> $27 per noble. Total collection is $540. It should be no surprise that most of the Elbonian nobles are "willing" to see that change happen. Meanwhile, the peasants that are already living paycheck-to-paycheck have to plan how to cut back on luxuries like keeping their teeth.
- themafia 1y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the Treasury takes in tax revenues throughout the year. The sources of that income are: 50% Payroll Income Tax. 35% Social Security Taxes. 7% Business Taxes. 7% Excise Taxes. 70 years ago they were: 25% Payroll Income Tax. 25% Social Security Taxes. 25% Business Taxes. 25% Excise Taxes. I think the priority is fixing this distribution to levels which were historically perceived as being more fair. The wealthy are one problem. The oversized corporations are the everlasting machine which drives them.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Excise taxes are effectively sales tax but only on specific products. This is less economically efficient than broad-based taxes unless the thing you're taxing is something you're specifically trying to discourage (e.g. cigarettes) rather than having the purpose of generating revenue, but since 1955 the government has become more inclined to ban things it doesn't like than tax them. In a global economy higher business taxes just cause large international corporations to incorporate in a different jurisdiction, which gives them an advantage over smaller purely domestic corporations, which is bad. Social Security is already taking in less money than it's paying out. Reducing the Social Security tax would imply reducing Social Security benefits, since that's where it goes, unless you're proposing a more significant reform of the system in general. The size of corporations and the amount they're taxed are two entirely different things. Indeed, the tax code does a lot of things to encourage corporations to be larger, like taxing dividends and capital gains after corporate income has already been taxed, which creates a tax preference for leaving the money inside of an existing corporation rather than investing it in starting a new competitor.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

The tax brackets are not what make taxes complicated. Knowing how to categorize different types of income is what makes taxes complicated. The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. They only thing it would do would be to eliminate progressive taxation. In other words, the rich would pay less. The poor would pay more.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
smcl 1y ago
This is exactly correct. That said, I'm quite surprised how many people struggle to understand how progressive tax bands/brackets work. It maybe doesn't help that the (right wing) media often portray them dishonestly (i.e. claiming that a 50% tax band starting at $100k/year means you would pay $50k/year in tax if you earn $100k/year)
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > portray them dishonestly Tangentially, the same motivated-disinformation occurs with Social Security. It's best-understood as an insurance-policy (OASDI is literally named that way) against dying poor and old/orphaned/disabled. With an insurance policy, it's normal for my month's premium to be spent on somebody else's current tragedy, it's normal for me to expect no cash if the Bad Thing never actually happens to me, and it's normal that there's no asset for me to pass on to my heirs. However wall-street bankers can't make tons of profits competing under that model, so instead they try to trick citizens into misunderstanding what the model is. They want people to think it's a government-managed investment account instead, where every person is filling an individual bucket of "their" money that will someday be tipped back out for them. With this deception, their job is much easier: They just need to say that they'll be a nicer manager of the accounts than the government is, because they'll give you more choices for managing "your" money. It's dishonest because the two things are fundamentally different in how they work and what they're good for.
fn-mote 1y ago
> The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. This is absolutely not true in the USA. Income from different sources is taxed differently. Example: The forms distinguish between short term capital gains, long term capital gains, and e.g., income from government bonds is taxed differently at lower levels of government.
dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
>The flat tax would not make tax preparation any bit easier. there are many way to 'define' a 'flat' tax. My way would be a fixed sum. Not a fixed rate. ( yes the rich pay the same as poor) This would ofcourse have it's own if/buts but it would eliminate 90%+ complexity. The ideal situation would be be no income tax and many other forms of taxation.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  A fixed sum is impossible. It would have to be so low that everyone could pay it, no matter how poor. It's basically a proposal to eliminate government (meaning anarchy, chaos, and inevitably the rise of some new order that will, of necessity, go back to a more rational system of taxation).

Terr_ 1y ago

> If there were a 'flat' tax [...] the rich will be more willing to pay That's just because moving from progressive-taxation to a flat-tax reduces how much they pay! The "simplicity" of the math done by their usual accounting firm that does their taxes for them is irrelevant by comparison. _________ To illustrate why the burden shifts, suppose the nation of Elbonia needs a constant $540 to operate, and it moves from a progressive tax to a flat tax. This year, progressive taxation, rising %: 90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 20% -> $2 per peasant. 10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 40% -> $36 per noble. Total collection is $540. Next year, flat tax, same % for all: 90 peasants each earn $10 and are taxed 30% -> $3 per peasant. 10 nobles each earn $90 and are taxed 30% -> $27 per noble. Total collection is $540. It should be no surprise that most of the Elbonian nobles are "willing" to see that change happen. Meanwhile, the peasants that are already living paycheck-to-paycheck have to plan how to cut back on luxuries like keeping their teeth.

themafia 1y ago
It's worth pointing out that the Treasury takes in tax revenues throughout the year. The sources of that income are: 50% Payroll Income Tax. 35% Social Security Taxes. 7% Business Taxes. 7% Excise Taxes. 70 years ago they were: 25% Payroll Income Tax. 25% Social Security Taxes. 25% Business Taxes. 25% Excise Taxes. I think the priority is fixing this distribution to levels which were historically perceived as being more fair. The wealthy are one problem. The oversized corporations are the everlasting machine which drives them.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Excise taxes are effectively sales tax but only on specific products. This is less economically efficient than broad-based taxes unless the thing you're taxing is something you're specifically trying to discourage (e.g. cigarettes) rather than having the purpose of generating revenue, but since 1955 the government has become more inclined to ban things it doesn't like than tax them. In a global economy higher business taxes just cause large international corporations to incorporate in a different jurisdiction, which gives them an advantage over smaller purely domestic corporations, which is bad. Social Security is already taking in less money than it's paying out. Reducing the Social Security tax would imply reducing Social Security benefits, since that's where it goes, unless you're proposing a more significant reform of the system in general. The size of corporations and the amount they're taxed are two entirely different things. Indeed, the tax code does a lot of things to encourage corporations to be larger, like taxing dividends and capital gains after corporate income has already been taxed, which creates a tax preference for leaving the money inside of an existing corporation rather than investing it in starting a new competitor.