this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
409 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3051 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Looks like many haven't read the article before commenting. While both candidates have a proposal about the same topic, the methodology of implementing this seems to differ greatly.

The reaction in the comments appears to reflect more of the potential outcome of the Trump plan, though the Trump plan seems to mainly be some cobbled together bits of some other Republican proposals.

From the article, the Harris plan goes along with a minimum wage increase and an income cap so higher wage workers can't collect tax free "tips" in lieu of taxable income.

I also looked up some implications of elimination of taxed tips and found this article that goes into some numbers and shows how raising the standard deduction to make more workers, not just tipped workers, exempt from income tax and benefit many more people. I thought that was interesting and provided more seemingly useful info than either candidates' campaign promises.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The solution would be to increase the lowest tax bracket then.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's another fine suggestion.

The numbers didn't really look in line for today's incomes, and from what I can tell from this, tax brackets for anything but the highest earners haven't changed other than an inflation adjustment since the 80s.

[–] fraksken@infosec.pub 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Wish my wages were taxed at those brackets

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'll guess if you're non-US, you're also getting things for your taxes such as healthcare and other services. For us, it's essentially a la carte pricing, so for many of these people in the lower tax brackets, healthcare is much more than taxes.

The bottom 50% of earners pay about $700/yr in federal tax. State and local taxes, property tax, school tax, and sales tax on top of that. "Average" income tax is $15,000, only due to wealth disparity. The bottom 50% pay less than 2.5% of all income tax.

Average healthcare cost is around $14,000/yr, so even for solidly middle-class people, healthcare costs are the same or higher than paid taxes, so that is probably much closer to, if not more than you may be paying.

Paying tax is a civic responsibility. The real pain comes from not feeling like you get what you pay for. I've no issue with coughing up some cash for safe roads and food inspectors, but when we have bridges collapsing and healthcare isn't considered a human right, it makes for some discontentment.

[–] fraksken@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Before any taxes are applied, we pay 13,08% for social security. Then taxes are applied according to following brackets:

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Wow, that chart does look crazy high in comparison.

I always think VAT looks wildly expensive as well.

I found 2 more charts and each country looks to have fairly different ways of taxing people, making it hard to see who's getting the best and worst deals. Especially as the taxes go to different things.

Chart article

[–] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

This is just federal income tax and doesn't count tax contributions towards medicare and social security (which is capped after a certain level, so someone making $1 million a year pays the same toward social security as someone making the cap which is currently around $160k). It also doesn't count state income taxes.

[–] homura1650@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The us also has a $14,600 standard deduction that effectively adds a 0% bracket and increases the lower thresholds by that amount (people in the higher thresholds would probably itemize, decreasing their effective tax even further).

The IRS does index the tax brackets for inflation.

Also, that table does not include state taxes.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is a lot more to it than the table. I think it was OP's article mentioned that there were bills circulating to eliminate the state income tax on tips as well as just the federal.

I mentioned some of the other taxes in my other replies a bit, but other than paying taxes, I'm not much of an expert. Plus if most people couldn't be bothered to read the original article, I'm not going to look up a bunch more data they won't read. 😁

Our taxes could be worse, but they could also be much better. I don't know if these tip tax plans will do much, as it's <3% of people making tipped income according to the article if I'm remembering it right from yesterday. Something that would help the bottom 50% of earners seems like it would be worth the effort instead, instead of cementing tip culture as a substitute for fair wages, but that's just my opinion.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've only ever lived in states that don't have state taxes, only federal. That said every place I worked when I was younger had people just lying about their tips by claiming they only made tips that came from cards and pocketed all their tips from cash and never reported it. As cash has slowly disappeared more and more I'm sure that is dying off but tips were never a good thing for society. They are "politically correct" bribes. Then when companies realize customers will bribe their workers to be more helpful they got greedy and started taking those bribes. To which we made laws about stealing their bribes, so they paid politicians to make minimum wage separate for commonly bribed positions, effectively making it legal to steal bribes from their workers.

Making a portion of jobs qualify to not be taxable in parts of their income and not others regardless of tax brackets would be unresponsible. We are complicating a system that doesn't need to be more complicated, and all that does is make more room for loopholes and exploitation (whether it be if the worker or of the taxes that should have been paid).

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My experience talking with waitstaff friends mirrors yours.

They all swear they're getting the better end of the deal because they have good nights, but there's gotta be dead nights where they make nothing, and I can't imagine disability or unemployment is good when your wage is $2/hr.

To me it's passing the cost of labor onto customers in a less than transparent manner, and with wage theft by employers seeming to be a problem with restaurant staff, I don't know how you can prove stolen cash tips.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It varies, usually the ones I knew would make more money than those working back of house without an issue. Back of house would get paid say $10 an hour and work a 9 hour shift. Front would come in for 6 hours and leave with ~$150. Creating a natural divide between the two.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's just a title, it says what the article is about, but it can't say everything. But when everyone comments based on the title and not the article, we risk creating misinformation.

Trump and Harris can both say we should not tax tips, but if that's the end of the story from Trump, but it's part of a multi-pronged approach, that's what we need to be sharing and commenting on.

Everyone's points about tipped jobs being exploitative are correct, but that isn't what the article is about. If we just take it as Harris and Trump both want to do the same thing, that's a half truth, and that is what many of these comments perpetuate. Both sides or this are not the same, and it does a disservice to us all to treat it as such.

Having a more descriptive title can help, like if it said "Harris presents competing plan for removing tax on tips," but it is somewhat redundant as they wrote the entire rest of the article about it. I feel this is why we include the article with the post, and not just the title, no? 😉

I feel I'm sounding a bit harsh, which isn't my intent, but it irks me when I can go through a comment section and see just about everyone has missed the point.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Ok. Got it. Sounds like a misleading title.