this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
166 points (90.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2849 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
 

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/bnFwA

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] StayDoomed@lemmy.world 103 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Bring back tax rates of 90% again for the obscenely rich - it was that way up until the late 1900s. Back when the US actually funded things that benefit most people not just tax breaks for already rich people.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago

It was 50% before Reagan reduced it to 38%. The tax brackets aren’t nearly as large a contributor to inequality as the loopholes in tax law. Accelerated depreciation, tax credits, and the expensing rules for employee stock options are largely to blame for corporate tax evasion.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not even caring about the specific number:

  • why do tax brackets end at about the 5%? Basically wealthy and ultra-wealthy pay same rate as upper middle. We need more steps
  • why are there so many non-salary sources of wealth with lower tax rates, when only the wealthy can take advantage?

The bottom half of r tax system is reasonably progressive, so why not the top?

[–] panicnow@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Federal Tax Rates 2024 Tax Rate | For Single Filers

10%      $0 to $11,600        
12%      $11,600 to $47,150
22%      $47,150 to $100,525
24%      $100,525 to $191,950 
32%      $191,950 to $243,725
35%      $243,725 to $609,350
37%      $609,350 or more

Plus state/local taxes on top of that.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Ok, fine, there’s a step or two in the ”wealthy” category, but my point holds.

  • Why is someone who makes $X income taxed at the same rate as someone who makes (1,000 * $X) income?
  • Why can more wealthy pay lower taxes for different sources of wealth, and claim that “it’s not income”

Plus state taxes usually have few to no brackets, and I’ve only heard of one having a millionaires tax

[–] panicnow@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wasn’t disputing your point—just throwing in a little extra info since I literally had that table open in a different tab (it’s April in America). I honestly doubt changing those rates would impact things much though. I think we need an asset tax (like the one that exists in most states for houses and that we call property tax) that impacts stocks. Probably a massive change in estate taxes too.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Thanks for adding the info.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

The step function goes up every 50 bucks, as I recall.

[–] 24_at_the_withers@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're talking about income tax rates, and I agree that the top tax rates should be higher, but this won't fix the problem because billionaires don't make their money from salaries. Most of their money is theoretical and tied up in ownership of shares of a company.

They can sell shares or earn dividends to make money, so capital gains should also be taxed at a much higher rate. But billionaires often choose not to sell shares either because they have a better option...

They take out low interest rates loans using their shares as collateral. The interest rates they are charged are generally going to be far lower than the interest on their stocks that stay invested,. This is where most of their liquidity comes from, because loans aren't taxed, and in some regard is almost an infinite money glitch for billionaires.

I think we need to make it illegal to use financial holdings as collateral for loans, at least for starters.

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

I think we need to make it illegal to use financial holdings as collateral for loans, at least for starters.

And maybe a tax on assets over a set limit. Own more than $10M in assets? Time to start paying back society.