3 ms·

The current tax system is fundamentally flawed, and this will achieve nothing. The system is rigged against people who provide labour, when these people are th

The current tax system is fundamentally flawed, and this will achieve nothing. The system is rigged against people who provide labour, when these people are the ones keeping the system going. Why can companies deduct taxes from operating expenses and investments, yet individuals are taxed on revenue? This means companies can build wealth much easier than individuals. Why is housing, food, education and savings not considered operating expenses?

1123581321 15d ago
Individual tax rates would be set much higher if they were calculated based on personal budget surplus. The personal tax prep burden would be unbearable without cheating or taking a statutory amount of personal expenses, which is essentially our current situation. Arguably encouraging people not to save any money would be a moral hazard. However, I think you’re really just saying you’d like personal taxes to be lowered, yes?
kelseyfrog 14d ago
> The system is rigged against people who provide labour We live in a capitalist system, not a labourist system. If you're making money off labor, you're playing the wrong strategy, and why? In capitalism, the only winning move is to play capital. Typically, this means owning capital and finding a way to make it appreciate by way of paying people for their labor and using the difference in value to your advantage.
spwa4 14d ago
Well, of course it is. Governments (the biggest force in the economy) want power. Let's assume money is power, because to some extent it is. Money is the ability to do things in the real world, which is the building block of power. Governments' money comes largely, in fact overwhelmingly from the rich (income tax of the top 10% is 80% of income tax take-in, those sorts of stats, and goes out mostly to their many (MANY) employees. And on top of that, the rich can seriously increase what they pay for the government (while still increasing how quickly they become richer, obviously). So they don't come with demands for themselves personally, they come with demands that would increase the country's economy. So governments have to beg the rich for (80% of their) money. And employees have to beg the government for money. So who has the "Ok, we'll pay you more but to enable that you need to X" power in each case?

1123581321 15d ago

Individual tax rates would be set much higher if they were calculated based on personal budget surplus. The personal tax prep burden would be unbearable without cheating or taking a statutory amount of personal expenses, which is essentially our current situation. Arguably encouraging people not to save any money would be a moral hazard. However, I think you’re really just saying you’d like personal taxes to be lowered, yes?

kelseyfrog 14d ago

> The system is rigged against people who provide labour We live in a capitalist system, not a labourist system. If you're making money off labor, you're playing the wrong strategy, and why? In capitalism, the only winning move is to play capital. Typically, this means owning capital and finding a way to make it appreciate by way of paying people for their labor and using the difference in value to your advantage.

spwa4 14d ago

Well, of course it is. Governments (the biggest force in the economy) want power. Let's assume money is power, because to some extent it is. Money is the ability to do things in the real world, which is the building block of power. Governments' money comes largely, in fact overwhelmingly from the rich (income tax of the top 10% is 80% of income tax take-in, those sorts of stats, and goes out mostly to their many (MANY) employees. And on top of that, the rich can seriously increase what they pay for the government (while still increasing how quickly they become richer, obviously). So they don't come with demands for themselves personally, they come with demands that would increase the country's economy. So governments have to beg the rich for (80% of their) money. And employees have to beg the government for money. So who has the "Ok, we'll pay you more but to enable that you need to X" power in each case?