1007
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I don’t think you understand.

[-] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago

If flat tax would apply evenly to all sources, investment sales taxed at same rate as wages. No deductions. How would this not be fairer than the US current tax scheme?

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

You didn’t read what I said?

If a billionaire can take a salary of $80k at the hypothetical 10% tax and pay $8k tax while an IT professional making $200k has to pay $20k how is that fair? The billionaire takes money from capital gains (lower taxes) because they pay themselves in stock and funds, and/or uses loans (zero tax on loans- you know that, right?), puts his yacht under a shell company so no personal taxes on that, probably uses it for business trips so it’s use can be written off partially…and buys whatever the hell he/she wants. But pays less tax than the IT professional.

So you’re saying that’s just fine. That’s exactly how a flat tax works. That’s how rich people pay less than regular people.

[-] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

No I do not think it's fine. I did read what you said, but from your reply it's obvious you didn't read what I said.

I said if "apply evenly to all sources, investment sales taxed at same rate as wages" From your reply "billionaire takes money from capital gains (lower taxes)". That's not the same rate is it.

I said "No deductions."From your reply "so its use can be written off partially" That's a deduction isn't it.

The current system where rich pay a lower tax rate because they can take advantage of things like capital gains and deductions is not fair or equitable. A flat rate system that eliminated things like capital gains and deductions would not be fair, but it would be fairer because it keep the millionaire mfrom paying a lower rate than the poor (or the software engineer).

Graduated tax that eliminated things like capital gains and deductions would be fairer still. Also gift exemption, inheritance exemption and other carveouts that unduly favor the wealthy should at least be be adjusted if not outright eliminated.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Because a business use of a yacht (hypothetically) is not income. You get your yacht but no worries about it being taxed as income. You also completely skipped loans, loans are not income and therefore not taxable under your scheme, and portfolio loans are a huge part of how the wealthy get spending money. Now before you reiterate yet again you said all sources I want you to think a minute that these taxes are going to be applied to you, too. Your 401k. That’s investment. Your home loan. You want to tax that? How about your car and student loans. More taxes? Still sound right? Do you want to make carve outs for those things? That sounds suspiciously like writeoffs or “deductions”.

We could sit here all day and quibble over what is and isn’t income, but at the end of the day you’re going to end up with exceptions, or “deductions”, and if you’re going to say “well, nobody making under ‘x’ amount should be taxed on a 401k…” and now we’re right back where we started with a rich person making less than ‘x’.

Flat taxes are not going to work.

They are not fair.

You need a wealth tax and you need a tax that attaches itself to the vehicles used by the wealthy to get money that is under- or not taxed. Tax personal or portfolio loans over 100,000 not used for housing, medical care, or education. Stock options issued in lieu of or along with salary as compensation should be taxed as income when sold. Do not tax individual personal retirement accounts that deliver less than “x” income or payout to persons of retirement age. This is how you tax wealth and protect the normal persons. Not 10% of the $81k salary the billionaire gives himself.

[-] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Not advocating for flat tax, I've said flat tax not fair, we're in agreement on that.

I stand by my statement that a flat tax scheme applied evenly to all sources of income with no deductions to shield income, is fairer than the current scheme. Your arguments that flat tax scheme is unfair are all true but do not repudiate that statement.

I say it again, fairer than the current scheme. Don't tell me not fair, I agree. Tell me how everyone paying the same rate would not be fairer than the current scheme where wealthy are able to pay a lower rate. Again, fairer than, not fair.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

You’re talking out both sides. You agree yet disagree. I’ve already laid it out and you don’t seem to understand.

[-] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I understand, you are arguing quite ably against a point I didn't make and not addressing the point I did make.

this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
1007 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2593 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