this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
650 points (97.8% liked)

Work Reform

9877 readers
400 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Its so crazy our highest tax bracket is at low 6 figures when we have people at 10 figures.

[–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

why is it in brackets why not just a percentage

[–] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Percentages don't scale well into the billions, you will still need brackets.

A billionaire can give away 98% of their wealth and still comfortably be a multi millionare.

A full time cashier on the minimum wage can barely even survive on 100% of their wage. When it comes to living a healthy fulfilling life, If they contribute just 5% of their wage to tax they are sacrificing far more a billionaire paying 98% tax would be.

[–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

well then there should be a continuous way to make the percentage increase, like a sigmoid or so

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

because then paupers would pay the same rate as billionaires. At the same time brackets make sure eveyone pays the same for the set amount. So even if more brackets were introduced billionaires would pay the same rate on their first 100k as millionaires. People of wealth only pay higher on the actualy high level. Whats crazy is we have several brackets that basically run through the 5 figure range and just into the 6 but none higher were 5 figures should just have one lowest rate.

[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

It usually is a percentage, just set in brackets.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It's a percentage that nominally increases as wealth goes up.

Poor people need to spend a higher percentage of their income meeting basic needs, so having them pay the same percentage as the wealthy puts a higher burden on the poor.

In top of that, the wealthy are able to put a higher percentage of their income in things like investments, which are taxed at a lower rate (to encourage investing in the economy over hoarding wealth), so a flat rate tax would be effectively a regressive tax.

[–] Rootiest@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I vote we implement Pinata Economics

[–] bjornsno@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

No no, you vote by implementing Pinata Economics.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The problem is investments vs income. It's not a super straightforward problem to solve. Having said that other countries have implemented a wealth tax, so it can be done

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

I don't see why there is any difference between taxing income from work and investment.