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.

  • ccunning@lemmy.worldOP
    11·
    3 hours ago

    The standard deduction should be at least the median income…? Wouldn’t that mean that half of people would pay no income tax?

    Half or more depending on mean or median. But that’s just a starting point for the discussion.

    You might say this is what we should do, but I think it’s unreasonable to say that it’s a total head scratcher why we don’t already.

    That’s not what I was intending to ask. Sorry if I phrased it poorly. I’m trying to understand the arguments against it because it’s what makes sense to me.

    I just fail to see how this is placing the burden on the poor. It Is structured to do the exact opposite and give them the most breaks.

    I think the logical thing is to have those who most benefit from the infrastructure our taxes pay for be the ones who contribute the most. And those that are seeing the least benefit be exempt.

    I’d probably agree that the floor on the deduction should come up, and we should raise taxes on extreme wealth to make it up. But at least in its most essential form, income tax is already progressive.

    This is almost exactly what I suggested. I think we’re basically on the same page.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 hour ago

      Yeah I think we may only differ on degree, and yes some of my confusion about your post came from phrasing. There are still some phrasing points I’m struggling on.

      I think the logical thing is to have those who most benefit from the infrastructure our taxes pay for

      The poor benefit from roads, schools, firefighters, Medical/Medicaid, and utilities as much as anyone. But I think you had the super wealthy in mind. “Those who benefit from infrastructure” is an odd way to pinpoint the super wealthy.

      be the ones who contribute the most.

      This part is already true. Progressive tax brackets have them contributing the most as a proportion of pay, and far and away the most in absolute numbers.

      And those that are seeing the least benefit be exempt.

      The entire lower 50-60% of the economy is an extremely inclusive notion of “those who benefit the least.”

      Again, phrasing.