4 ms·

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 n

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).

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).