Taxing the rich is great and all, but it still doesn’t solve the issue of gov spending being completely and utterly shit. We spend more on healthcare per individual than any other nation on the planet. We don’t even need to tax the rich right now and we could have single payer. The idea that taxing the rich is needed to pay for services and safety nets is silly. We’re the wealthiest nation on the planet, we can already afford all of the things our citizens need, we just have a gov who doesn’t know how to properly spend the money it already has.
It is in most places outside the US. But it is still the same problem: regardless how high the official rate is, there are way to many loopholes to avoid paying them. It does not help if the tax rate is 80, 90, or even 99% if they get around paying it altogether.
400k is rich in some areas but certainly not everywhere, that’s way too sharp of a curve. Someone making 400k is already taxed at 35% federally plus whatever state and local so probably close to 50. The real issue is that after 500k the rates don’t change where it should be increasing logarithmically. But really after a certain point there are way too many things that the rich do to reduce their tax burden that just aren’t available to everyone else, that 100k or 400k person is in reality paying a much higher percentage than someone making a million a year much less billionaires.
Hmm, I don’t see it anymore. There was another post from another user that was word for word the same as yours, but slightly newer. My apologies, my client must have bugged out.
It’s nuts for them to rail against this because when Biden said 25% minimum, I was like, “that’s it‽”
I get taxed at 25% already and I’m making $125k.
25% is nowhere near enough. Anyone making over 400k individually should be taxed closer to 50%.
there should be a 100% tax for anyone who has a billion dollars or more.
That level of wealth is not compatible with existing in a society.
Taxing the rich is great and all, but it still doesn’t solve the issue of gov spending being completely and utterly shit. We spend more on healthcare per individual than any other nation on the planet. We don’t even need to tax the rich right now and we could have single payer. The idea that taxing the rich is needed to pay for services and safety nets is silly. We’re the wealthiest nation on the planet, we can already afford all of the things our citizens need, we just have a gov who doesn’t know how to properly spend the money it already has.
Oh, its you again.
Showing up yet again to reply to imaginary comments instead of the topic at hand.
Way to contribute just like last time…
Such a boomer reply.
Lol yes because someone else has a different take than you on your dumbass comment must be a boomer ok kid
Raising tax revenue and funding some variation of single payer health care or socialised medicine are not mutually exclusive.
Cool, where did I say they were?
Where I’m at it’s like anything over 95k is close to 50%. 25? Must be nice.
It is in most places outside the US. But it is still the same problem: regardless how high the official rate is, there are way to many loopholes to avoid paying them. It does not help if the tax rate is 80, 90, or even 99% if they get around paying it altogether.
Agreed, but I guess you’ve got to start somewhere.
400k is rich in some areas but certainly not everywhere, that’s way too sharp of a curve. Someone making 400k is already taxed at 35% federally plus whatever state and local so probably close to 50. The real issue is that after 500k the rates don’t change where it should be increasing logarithmically. But really after a certain point there are way too many things that the rich do to reduce their tax burden that just aren’t available to everyone else, that 100k or 400k person is in reality paying a much higher percentage than someone making a million a year much less billionaires.
Why did you copy and paste this exact comment from someone else elsewhere in this thread…?
What? I didn’t
Hmm, I don’t see it anymore. There was another post from another user that was word for word the same as yours, but slightly newer. My apologies, my client must have bugged out.
Lemmy is a little wonky, no biggie :)