70
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
70 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26916 readers
1365 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
One of the big issues I see with that proposal is that at some point, due to inflation an annual income in the ball park of 5 million dollars a year will be considered 'middle class'. And then the average person will be hit with substantial taxes from a then archaic tax law.
At that point you'll need a constitutional amendment to shift the goal post which is nearly impossible to do such. (At least at this moment in time it is.)
At that point the budget would likely have finally balanced itself out due to the higher tax rates. So of course there will probably be politicians arguing against making this change as it will effectively kill the federal budget, because shifting the tax laws will mean the government will be taking in substantially less.
It's a super well intentioned idea at the moment but it's really a disaster in the making for a future generation.
Just make it track inflation or based on median income.
just
Progressive tax is normal in most functional countries, it's not rocket science.
Basically you define X as a base sum that needs to be controlled for inflation. Minimum wage can be 2X, whereas 100% taxation might be reached at an income of 300X. In this scenario, nobody could earn more than 150 times minimum wage, and manipulating the calculation of X to make the rich richer would also benefit everyone else.
A bigger challenge is that billionaire scum tend not to have income, only loans, so they don't pay tax at all. But that's also easily fixed if there's political will.
You could tie it to a defined benchmark like X multiples of the current cost of living.
In the Mondragon cooperative (last I knew) compensation per role is defined as a multiple of some common base rate, and the chief executive will never make more than a certain amount over the lowest paid employee.