Minority rule

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-20-2020, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've honestly never understood the resistance to higher incomes paying a higher percentage.  IIRC you and I had a back and forth as I dislike a flat tax because 20% of 40k is far more significant to the person paying it than 20% of 2 million.  I think the back and forth here is one irrelevancy led to another and the discussion became the usual "I don't like you, you don't like me" back and forth.  I don't think a return to the high end tax rater of the past are an answer, there's just too many ways to funnel you money out of the country.  Closing up many of the loopholes, or limiting deductions for higher earners would go a long way towards amending that.


Bfine and I have gone head to head numerous times in the past, but I'd never accuse him of being stupid.

Because it's not just 40k vs 2m... there's a lot of people in between those numbers and based off your local cost of living, $200k might actually not be much more of a lifestyle than $60k.

In San Fancisco, $200k will get you the same that $58,800 in Cincinnati does.
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/cincinnati-oh/200000

So if you charge the former much lower taxes than the latter, then the person making less is actually ending up with a better quality of living. A flat % is the best compromise to fairness and feasibility there is because it's also a matter of severely diminishing returns on services paid for. It's already iffy that 1 person should have to pitch in 10-20x more for the FBI or military than another if they're getting the same benefits from it. I only support a flat tax rate because I know that a flat tax amount is basically impossible to make functional.

That said, while I support a flat tax rate, I also support there being a certain amount you can make that is tax free before you even worry about a % and that being the ONLY deduction allowed in order to simplify federal tax laws. So say you make $50k/yr. The first $12k you make is ignored and then only the next $38k is taxed at the 10-15-20% (whatever works out as the reasonable flat amount). Which would protect the people 

It would help protect the people living near the poverty line while still making sure that everyone pitches in their fair share. The threshold of untaxed money would also be a pretty easy starting point for when (not if, but likely when) UBI starts becoming a needed thing. 

Also it would make it so average people can actually do their own federal taxes ($INCOMEk-$12k)x.2= Federal Taxes... no loopholes, no deductions, done. No need to hire people to do it for you, no need for the whole tax return system, no benefit for rich people with expensive accountants who know how to game the system. Pure simple simplicity.

Honestly the problem then would just be State taxes, which isn't exactly an easy thing to fix since you're going to end up with 50 different approaches. Maybe just encourage states to take the Florida approach of no state income taxes, just sales taxes?