I’m looking for serious answers to understand the mentality. Please avoid the snark. I know it’s low hanging and tempting but I’m pretty sure most, if not all, of use here on Lemmy “get it”.

I just can’t get out of my head how absurd it is that we, in the U.S. anyway, put so much of the tax burden on working class folks instead of those most benefiting from our economic system.

It seems to me the standard deduction should be at least the median personal income (~$40k) if not the mean(~$60k) with progressive tax brackets adjusted to cover costs thereafter and possibly a supplemental wealth tax.

But I’m not an economist so trying to understand why I’m wildly wrong and this would be a terrible idea either from an economic perspective or from a political perspective.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Just from a game theory perspective, a distributed group of people who are unorganized are unable to get their concerns addressed properly when it comes time to writing tax laws.

    The rich and powerful, by virtue of being rich and powerful, have a voice in writing the tax laws. The distributed poor, do not. So it’s much easier to satisfy income goals by taxing the group who has no feedback loop to the politicians

  • harsh3466@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    The isn’t snark. The answer is simply greed. The rich want to be richer. They want it all. The mentality is, “I don’t care about anyone else, I want it all.”

    Edit: removed a redundant sentence

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Mathematics and Politics.

    There are many more people who are “working class” than rich. The argument is that if you take some money from a lot of people, you get more money than if you take a lot of money from some people.

    There’s also the argument that if everyone pitches in, the overall burden for each individual is less.

    What this fails to address is that the richer you are, the more you can play with your money and end up with nothing to tax. This is why the rich get richer and the rest of us don’t.

    Running through all that is a thing called “trickle down economics” which claims that the money from the rich ends up in society, but recent reviews of this have proven this to be nonsense. Politicians use this as an argument for the status quo.

    Finally, the rich shape the narrative. Politicians are essentially elected by the rich through their manipulation of the story through their media empires and social media platforms.

    • ccunning@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      17 days ago

      The argument is that if you take some money from a lot of people, you get more money than if you take a lot of money from some people.

      That’s all dependent on how much you’re taking and from who which I addressed in my comment.

      There’s also the argument that if everyone pitches in, the overall burden for each individual is less.

      This only makes sense if you define “burden” with a fixed dollar amount. A $6k tax “burden” is going to be a much harder burden on someone who makes $40k than someone who makes $250k

      What this fails to address is that the richer you are, the more you can play with your money and end up with nothing to tax.

      This could be addressed by the wealth tax I mentioned.

      In the end, I do believe it’s politics and the wealthy manipulating people’s perception.

      They’ve got us focused on this bullshit culture war when what we need is a good old-fashioned class war.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    17 days ago

    Rich people have special access to the legislative machinery that you and I don’t. Through bribes “contributions” they can craft laws that let them avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden. They can also “modify” pending legislation to remove the penalties for breaking those laws. It must be nice to live in a consequence-free environment.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 days ago

      The sad truth is that this is exactly the answer. Rich people have more power by virtue of being rich.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Sorry, OP might judge this to contain some snark and as such, is ineligible. ☹️

  • atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    17 days ago

    It’s the same as in every business: those making decisions think that the decision making is the hardest and most important part of the equation. Not only that, they believe that it is their right and that they worked very hard to get where they are.

    There are two reasons they have to believe that:

    1. if they didn’t, they’d feel that they didn’t deserve it
    2. it also explains (to them at least) why there is inequality

    The common argument that is brought up against change now is capital flight: “if businesses and rich people were taxed too much, they’d leave the country”. There is a great fear that they will leave and take all the good jobs with them. The counter argument to that is: they aren’t the only ones with brains to get a business going. Rich people aren’t smarter than non-rich people, businesses that leave did employ people from whence they left and they also probably sold to the people in that area or country.

    Now, of course the speed of departure, the political reaction, and the location are important.

    Speed: instant departure can have a serious impact as the jobless might not be able to find other employment quickly. A graduated departure allows that however and also makes it possible for people to focus on other jobs/specialisations in the first place.

    Political reaction: depending on where you are, providing recertification and training courses, having good welfare programs, and most importantly having an exit tax can help soften the blow of departure

    Location: A big employer leaving a small town can be devastating. A small employer leaving a city, less so. A big employer leaving a city can burden the city, but the other factors are important.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 days ago

    The argument is that the rich and powerful are rich enough and powerful enough to corrupt the system and not have to pay taxes.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 days ago

    If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

    -Lyndon B. Johnson

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    16 days ago

    Blind greed and incredible selfishness.

    Basically you’re trying to reason madness.

  • AdNecrias@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 days ago

    They are less powerful and easier to tax. It’s all about power, The rich by themselves are less powerful than the masses when the masses are together. Which is why they’re taxed at all. There’s something more powerful

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    17 days ago

    IMO the most valid argument is that there are way more people making a middling income than people making a high income, so any reduction in taxes for those people would need a proportionally much larger increase in the upper brackets to maintain the same level of tax revenue, if it’s possible to make the numbers work at all depending on how much of a tax break you want to give. The minimum amount to be taxed is set based on where the tail end of the bell curve is, the number of people who are poor enough not to be taxed is small.

    Of course there’s also the fact that the richest people don’t get their money from having a job at all, it’s all in investments, so messing with income tax rates doesn’t even affect them.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      To build off of this, if you collect $1000 in taxes from a million people and you’ve just pulled in a billion dollars. With 300 million people in the country that’s a lot of tax dollars.

      Obviously if you can tax 1000 out of every million dollars in wealth and individual earns in a year you can easily collect far more in taxes given how many multimillionaires will see their wealth increase by tens or hundreds of millions in a year.

      This is all super reductive for simplicity. It’s worth looking at how the super rich are able to avoid paying taxes. Are they not paying taxes because they’re doing things with their money that is directly incentivized and generally better for the country than if they simply hoarded the same money, such as running the money through charities, clean energy installtions, etc? I’m honestly asking because i really don’t know and I dont have the time right now to pull at that thread and research the question

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      And that’s the definition of capitalist vs working class. A top surgeon makes a lot of money yes, but they are still working class because their main income is from salary.

      Earning a big salary or buying some stocks don’t make anyone a capitalist. Being the owner of Johnson and Johnson, hiring an administrator and not working a day in your life does. And that’s the kind of people who get richer with any crisis, holds the biggest part of Johnson and Johnson profits, and pays no tax at all.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    20 years ago, the right wing propaganda machine was focused on (before they went full out fascist) low taxes for the “job creators” such as corporations and rich people, on the basis of that leading to more lucrative job opportunities for everyone else. The thinking was that the people and corporations in this low-tax environment would have incentives for creating jobs “here” instead of moving them overseas.

    Not everyone on that side of the isle have realized that this results in jobs still ending up overseas, along with money that could’ve funded schools, roads, libraries, et al. And many of those who have realized it continue along the same path because it’s too profitable for them to do so.

    Remember this next time you hear slogans such as “trickle down economy”, or Glitch McConnells favorite: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

  • Bear@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 days ago

    Great question but you are asking the wrong people as you can see. You won’t find serious arguments or alternative views here.

    • ccunning@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      Yeah. I tried and failed to head it off at the pass. There are some good comments in here though.

    • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      This really demonstrates what I dislike about Lemmy. Too many people who want to inject their political beliefs into every conversation. Supply side economics is a thing. Whether it works or not is highly subject to debate but it is an entire school of thought in economics.

  • ultranaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    16 days ago

    If you are talking about federal income taxes, they are actually progressive. The vast majority of the money collected comes from the top 50%, the 1% pays something like 25% of the total just by themselves. Its why Republicans and billionaires bitch about it so much and want to eliminate the federal income tax. In reality poor people are mostly impacted by sales taxes, and that’s because of the basic economics involved that make sales taxes inherently regressive.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 days ago

      The problem is creative tax application AKA tax evasion. Somehow, rich people manage to pay way below what one would expect in relation to their income.