5 ms·

On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. Mitt Romney mentioned a number of 47% during his presidential campaign

by kccqzy 5mo ago

On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. Mitt Romney mentioned a number of 47% during his presidential campaign and that number was mostly true. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-47-percent-americans-pay-no-income-tax/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/18/mitt-romne... People love to talk about the marginal tax rates but not the average tax rates. And I think that’s right because the conversation should be focused on the wealthiest people.

naijaboiler 5mo ago
i hate when people bring it up. everybody that works pays payroll taxes which is around 25% when you count both sides.
- relium 5mo ago
  Federal payroll taxes in the US are 15.3% (7.65% for each side).
  - prasadjoglekar 5mo ago
    Social security and Medicare are also payroll "taxes" in that they're not optional and are automatically deducted.
    - auggierose 5mo ago
      This is called insurance, not tax.
      - lotsofpulp 5mo ago
        If the government mandates it under threat of violence, it’s called a tax. It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax. But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.
        auggierose 5mo ago
        Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not. If you have a car, you need to pay car insurance. Is that also a tax? The concept of insurance is independent of mandatory or not. That should be obvious, I wonder why it isn't to you. Maybe your ideology prohibits clear thinking and makes you vote Trump?
        ethbr1 5mo ago
        Something can be mandatory insurance AND a tax.
        lotsofpulp 5mo ago
        >Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not. In the context of differentiating between wealth redistribution and insurance, insurance does not redistribute wealth, insurance redistributes risk since underwriting in a competitive marketplace ensures you only a premium commensurate to your risks. For example, the government mandates only liability insurance up to $x, for which the premium for the same coverage can be vastly different depending on each person's driving history. While this can be considered a tax because the government mandates it, one can see how this is not wealth redistribution since the "tax" being paid is at least partly dependent on one's risk profile. Contrast this with a government mandated defined benefit pension contribution equal to a percentage of one's earned income, with a known fact that one's contributions will reflect their benefit less and less as the years go on. That is far more "wealth redistribution" than "insurance". Another example is in the US, health insurance premiums are more tax than an actuarially calculated premium based on health risk. This is because health insurers are not allowed to price health insurance based on health risks. It is explicitly a redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and sick, due to the maximum age rating factor and inability to underwrite based on pre-existing health conditions.
- votepaunchy 5mo ago
  It’s 15.3% counting both sides, and capped. And it’s the only “tax” that is paid back, at progressive rates, because it’s a retirement annuity not an income tax.
  - bombcar 5mo ago
    It’s an income tax wearing the trenchcoat of a retirement annuity- it’s not one for any practical purpose.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
BugsJustFindMe 5mo ago
> On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. That's an irrelevant diversion though, because the measure that matters when discussing the fairness of taxes is how much people are left with at the end after paying whatever taxes they pay, including sales tax, income tax, and any other kind of tax. And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none, and for the people for whom a wealth tax would even apply the answer is unimaginable amounts.
- credit_guy 5mo ago
  That's not all that matters. The main reason to have taxes is to fund the government, not to make society a more just society. And thinking that billionaires will just take a wealth tax as served, and perhaps will ask "can I have some more" is one way to think about this, but probably not the best way. A better way to think is that action might be followed by reaction. There is no manifest destiny for California to be the epicenter of tech.
  - mannanj 5mo ago
    Does the government not have the goal to make society a more just society? When did that stop being a priority of government? Even a teeny, tiny one?
    - credit_guy 5mo ago
      Sure, the government has that goal too. But the government has many tools, and using taxes for that is using the wrong tool. Or maybe you think that billionaires owe us not only to pay taxes, but also to play nice, and pay those taxes with a smile on their face?
      - ethbr1 5mo ago
        > pay those taxes with a smile on their face The government's monopoly on punitive violence isn't only intended for the peasantry...
maxerickson 5mo ago
Pretty cool that the taxes high earners stop paying are not considered income taxes. (Social security and Medicare)
- didgetmaster 5mo ago
  Social Security tax is the only tax that has a limit. Medicare tax applies to all wages and high earners even pay an extra percentage. SS tax has a limit because benefits are also limited. It is a forced retirement plan where if you live long enough, you might get back what you paid in.

by kccqzy 5mo ago

naijaboiler 5mo ago

i hate when people bring it up. everybody that works pays payroll taxes which is around 25% when you count both sides.

relium 5mo ago
Federal payroll taxes in the US are 15.3% (7.65% for each side).
- prasadjoglekar 5mo ago
  Social security and Medicare are also payroll "taxes" in that they're not optional and are automatically deducted.
  - auggierose 5mo ago
    This is called insurance, not tax.
    - lotsofpulp 5mo ago
      If the government mandates it under threat of violence, it’s called a tax. It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax. But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.
      - auggierose 5mo ago
        Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not. If you have a car, you need to pay car insurance. Is that also a tax? The concept of insurance is independent of mandatory or not. That should be obvious, I wonder why it isn't to you. Maybe your ideology prohibits clear thinking and makes you vote Trump?
        ethbr1 5mo ago
        Something can be mandatory insurance AND a tax.
        lotsofpulp 5mo ago
        >Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not. In the context of differentiating between wealth redistribution and insurance, insurance does not redistribute wealth, insurance redistributes risk since underwriting in a competitive marketplace ensures you only a premium commensurate to your risks. For example, the government mandates only liability insurance up to $x, for which the premium for the same coverage can be vastly different depending on each person's driving history. While this can be considered a tax because the government mandates it, one can see how this is not wealth redistribution since the "tax" being paid is at least partly dependent on one's risk profile. Contrast this with a government mandated defined benefit pension contribution equal to a percentage of one's earned income, with a known fact that one's contributions will reflect their benefit less and less as the years go on. That is far more "wealth redistribution" than "insurance". Another example is in the US, health insurance premiums are more tax than an actuarially calculated premium based on health risk. This is because health insurers are not allowed to price health insurance based on health risks. It is explicitly a redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and sick, due to the maximum age rating factor and inability to underwrite based on pre-existing health conditions.
votepaunchy 5mo ago
It’s 15.3% counting both sides, and capped. And it’s the only “tax” that is paid back, at progressive rates, because it’s a retirement annuity not an income tax.
- bombcar 5mo ago
  It’s an income tax wearing the trenchcoat of a retirement annuity- it’s not one for any practical purpose.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

BugsJustFindMe 5mo ago

> On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. That's an irrelevant diversion though, because the measure that matters when discussing the fairness of taxes is how much people are left with at the end after paying whatever taxes they pay, including sales tax, income tax, and any other kind of tax. And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none, and for the people for whom a wealth tax would even apply the answer is unimaginable amounts.

credit_guy 5mo ago
That's not all that matters. The main reason to have taxes is to fund the government, not to make society a more just society. And thinking that billionaires will just take a wealth tax as served, and perhaps will ask "can I have some more" is one way to think about this, but probably not the best way. A better way to think is that action might be followed by reaction. There is no manifest destiny for California to be the epicenter of tech.
- mannanj 5mo ago
  Does the government not have the goal to make society a more just society? When did that stop being a priority of government? Even a teeny, tiny one?
  - credit_guy 5mo ago
    Sure, the government has that goal too. But the government has many tools, and using taxes for that is using the wrong tool. Or maybe you think that billionaires owe us not only to pay taxes, but also to play nice, and pay those taxes with a smile on their face?
    - ethbr1 5mo ago
      > pay those taxes with a smile on their face The government's monopoly on punitive violence isn't only intended for the peasantry...

maxerickson 5mo ago

Pretty cool that the taxes high earners stop paying are not considered income taxes. (Social security and Medicare)

didgetmaster 5mo ago
Social Security tax is the only tax that has a limit. Medicare tax applies to all wages and high earners even pay an extra percentage. SS tax has a limit because benefits are also limited. It is a forced retirement plan where if you live long enough, you might get back what you paid in.