#marginal tax

[phoenixyfriend]

Ko-fi prompt from @kayasurin:

Please lay out, in the most simple, basic terms, what progressive taxes (I think that's the name for them) are and how they work so I can eventually win an argument, thanks!

Personally, I still think this cartoon at @thenib explains marginal taxes better than anything else I've seen.

This is the wikipedia image for progressive tax rates, comparing taxation in 1970 in three countries (UK, US, France) to the same countries in 2005. (article)

The above illustrates how, ideally, people will be paying a greater amount of their wealth to the state if they have more wealth than a person should have. The actual details of it are a bit more complicated, since it deals with wealth percentiles instead of straight income amounts, so we'll move on.

Let's imagine that the margin is $50k/year, because that is the livable wage pre-tax for wherever we set this. Under the $50k, you pay 20%. Anything past that $50, you pay 70%.

If you make $25k/year, you pay 20% on it, and that's the end of it.

If you make $50k/year, you pay 20% on it, and that's the end of it.

If you make $150k/year, then you pay 20% on the first $50k, and then 70% on the remaining $100k.

If you make a a million, you still only pay 20% on the first $50k, but then 70% on the remaining $950k.

On a moral level, the idea here is that everyone should pay taxes, but nobody should face an undue burden. If you make at least $50k, then you are left with at least $40k after taxes, no matter how much more you make, which should be enough to live off of without trouble. If you make more after that, good for you! You have to pay a higher tax on that portion, but not on the previous $50k, so you will still have that livable wage of $40k post-tax. In the context of our setting, any money you make that is more than $50k is, in theory, a surplus. Not just disposable income, but extra-disposable income, the kind where a person asks "okay, you are making so much money that a lot of your surplus must be coming from someone else not getting paid enough, so let's just get that from you now to make up for the difference."

Buuuuuut there's still a difference between someone who makes $55k, someone who makes $250k, and someone who makes a million a year.

So the above explanation does greatly oversimplify. Part of progressive tax rates is that it's not just "people under this high wage get this tax rate, and everyone above it gets this other tax rate." It's not just the two categories, but a set of steps.

Let's look at this chart from Wiztax.

If this chart stresses you out to look at, don't worry. I'll explain.

(I believe 11k is approximately where the official poverty line sits in NYC right now, and 44,725 is about a living wage for someone with roommates and no kids.)

If you take a look at the second line, $11k-44,725, it tells you that the amount you pay is $1,100 plus 12% of the amount over. That $1,100 is the 10% of under 11k from the first line, and then you pay 12% of the rest.

Next line down, $44,726-95,375 looks wild in comparison. Your flat base for everything 44,725 and under is $5,147! Which is...

1,100 + 0.12*(44,725-11,000)

You pay the tax rate for that specific margin all the way up. You pay 10% for the first 11k, 12% on the next 33,725, 22% of the next 50,650, and so on.

It's chunks, and steps, because our tax code does (sometimes, if we're lucky) understand that all this exists on a spectrum. You do not get taxed out of your nose if you make one cent above that $44,725. You just get taxed a bit higher for the next 50k.

Here is a truly horrible little illustration of how it works, if that's easier:

[inkskinned]

100,000 dollars is not a lot of money.

it is also a lot more money than i will ever have. my student loans make up half of that - they're coming back, i'm told, like we all bounced back recently. the other day while paying for gas to go to work, i overdrew my account without knowing it.

i sat in the car and looked at the charge and tried to do the math. where the fuck is the money even going? i don't live extravagantly. i live in a hole in the ground, in an apartment the size of a sneeze; covered in ants. yes, i wanted to live close to a population center. maybe that's my fault. i've downloaded the apps and i've spoken to the experts and i've cut back on excess. i can't help the pharmacy bills or the medical debt.

i have a good, well-paying job. when i googled it to see if i was getting a fair salary, i found out i'd be making "upper middle class" money. which doesn't make sense - is "upper middle class" now just "able to afford a one-bedroom without a roommate". when i was younger, upper-middle meant a nice big house and a backyard and vacations and not flinching about eating at a resturant.

i was talking to my friend who is a realtor. he said 100,000 dollars is extremely cheap for housing. he's not wrong. 100,000 dollars would change my life. 100,000 dollars also won't really buy you anything. it could get you out of debt, potentially, if you were lucky and had a certain amount of scholarships to tack onto your degree. you could pay off the car and then have enough left over for "spending" money. how fucking amazing. one vacation, maybe two if you're thrifty. and then - like magic - the money would evaporate into nothing. people would sigh and tell you see, you should have put it into savings! like "upper middle class" people can't afford to value "actually living" over squirrelling wealth. you should spend your life only in scarcity. like that is what made the rich people all their real "actually a lot of money".

100,000 dollars would literally set me free. it also would just set me back to "earning normally" instead of paying down debt into infinity. god, do you know how many of us just want that? that our first thought is we could stop scrambling and just be free of debt if we won the lottery? that we don't even necessarily need to stop working - we just wouldn't have to worry about failing or falling?

and. at the same time. 100,000 dollars is next to fucking nothing.

[nochangeintheplan]

Preorder will go live on my kofi at 1:00 PM EST on April 6th!

Shipping is 6 USD for United States, 20 USD for Worldwide. Shipping is possible to any country covered by USPS. If your country has any specific shipping stipulations that you know of, when it comes time for the preorder you'll have my email to contact me about any of those extra concerns!

There will be 100 made; manufacturing is currently underway for the lil guys. I'll be sure to update my kofi with further info about the process as it goes along!

[steevejr]

amidst the doomposting I really want everyone to clap that Missouri legalized abortion and reproductive rights and the right to bodily autonomy!!!! huge deal for a massively red state !! state funded Medicaid being forced to cover abortions and birth control is a huge step forward for trans healthcare too‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️

also it raised minimum wage, established mandatory sick time accural, and denied raising cop pensions ‼️‼️‼️ small steps in the right direction ‼️‼️

[pigeon-behavior]

One day I'll write a book on this shit

[fshoulders]

Watched a funny movie from 1936 last night which spends a huge amount of its runtime skewering foolish rich people, but woke up still hearing one line over and over.

The father of the rich family, played by eyebrow artist and gravelly punchline man Eugene Pallette, says “I don’t mind giving the government 60% of what I make. But I can’t do it when my family spends 50%!”

I haven’t done the math to figure out if your total income tax could have hit 60% in 1936: the top tax rate (which would only apply to the money he made in excess of some large figure) seems to have been around 79%, so he would have to be making a LOT of money.

But somehow, regardless, just a rich character saying that offhandedly to set up the joke keeps playing on loop in my head. “I don’t mind giving the government 60% of what I make.” The government employing people to build bridges and paint murals and interview survivors of slavery for posterity. “I don’t mind giving the government 60% of what I make.” The feeble beginnings of a social safety net. The country crawling out of the Great Depression and some rich guy, even an imaginary one a movie studio could put up on a screen for people, not minding paying his share to the country where all his wealth was collected.

“I don’t mind giving the government 60% of what I make.”

[crowns-of-violets-and-roses]

Every once in a while I see somebody online post a picture of a sign a cafe or restaurant put up saying there’s a discount for paying in cash (often referencing credit card fees) and they always adamantly refuse to believe the people explaining that what’s actually going on there is tax evasion

[thoughtportal]

how tax brackets work

[socialpermadeath]

Right wing politicians want to "return to the good old days" but don't want to bring back the 91% to 92% marginal tax rate of 1950-1963. Those are the good old days you're talking about and a lot of what made them good was that "excessive" tax for the top 1%.

[bisexualalienss]

eliminating income tax and imposing high tariffs…jesus christ 🤡🤡🤡

[burnnotice]

[roseband]

...

[beardedmrbean]

One of the main political events in recent months, which will continue in the future, is the referendum that the "Vazrazhdane" party organized regarding Bulgaria's entry into the Eurozone. The results of the parliamentary elections could be an indicator of the opinion of Bulgarian citizens on this issue.

According to these results, 1,638,693 voters voted for parties that support Bulgaria's entry into the Eurozone as quickly as possible.

This number includes the votes of GERB-SDS - 669,924, "We Continue the Change - Democratic Bulgaria" - 621,069 and DPS - 347,700.

"Vazrazhdane", who are the initiators of the referendum in question, are against the rapid entry into the eurozone. They have 358,174 votes. To the voices of "Vazrazhdane" on this topic, it is appropriate to add the voices of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which are increasingly closer to their position on this issue. They are 225,914 or a total of 584,088.

As for "There Is Such a People", it is a little difficult to determine a definite position in one direction or the other. Before, they had a hesitant position on the matter. However, in their first speech in the new parliament, the party stated that they were in favor of a quick completion of the preparations for entering the Eurozone.

The voters of "There Is Such a People" are 103,971. With them, the total number of opponents of rapid entry into the euro area becomes 688,059. If we add the votes of "There Is Such a People" to the supporters of the euro, they become 1,742,664 in total.

It is difficult to predict whether, if there is a referendum, its result will be similar to that of the parliamentary vote. Because votes of voters who voted for parties below the 4% barrier will also be counted there. In such a plebiscite, those who do not take part in parliamentary elections or do not support anyone will probably also participate - in the last vote they had enough votes for their own parliamentary group.

However, the votes cast for the parliamentary parties are a sufficiently representative sample. It is clear from them that the supporters of the rapid entry into the Eurozone are much more than those who want it to happen more slowly or not at all.

[5ellaal5]

I am very passionate about bringing others into the MMT view

Taxes by the government that issued the currency make the money go away. Become nonexistant. Countries like the US do not need taxes to buy or pay for anything ever. Making taxes match spending is just brain games to hide power and make people seem helpless (and to excuse inactivity).

Governments/nations with fiat currency MAKE MONEY in the moment it is needed. However much is needed. The money comes to be in that moment.

Taxes by the government that issued the currency make the money go away.

If you let High Net Worth individuals keep the money and put it in savings or in other nations, it LOOKS LIKE it went away, but they can bring that money back at any point to do whatever they want…

And high net worth individuals have changed the laws and tax codes in most places on Earth so that when they make some nation’s money “disappear” into their account, they get to say “ooh look it made more money so now I have even more money to do whatever I want at any time I want”

Taxing the rich takes away their power. It makes that money nonexistent. It will not mysteriously grow. They cannot offer it to others. They cannot use it as collateral to get loans for more money.

And

At the same time

We can also decide RIGHT NOW TODAY NO BARRIERS (other than those in our minds) that we can make money* appear for whatever cause we need

Like UBI and ending child hunger etc

It’s just that currently

The people who decide what the Just-Made-Right-Now money pays for have chosen —HAVE CHOSEN AND ACTIVELY KEEP CHOOSING— to fund and arm a genocide by sending money (and future power) to weapons manufacturers and corrupt politicians.

Learn about MMT

And see what power we already have.

*“money” here refers to nations with fiat currency that haven’t pegged it to any other currency and don’t owe debt in another currency that they intend to pay

Eg USA, Great Britain, Japan

Not Eurozone, not individual US states,

not many colonized nations that have been burdened with World Bank or international private “investment” … unless they decide to simply not pay it or force their debtors to accept the indebted nation’s own currency

Tax wealth. Tax the rich. Dismantle inequality.

[castielsprostate]

i have once again. made unwise financial decisions <- bought a pair of shoes. $80. i have a $90 haircut on tuesday 🫠 AUOUOUOUOUAUGH

okay buuuut why be financially responsible when we can get little trinketsssss and stuff hehehehee

[godstielcult]

Why don't we ever talk about the exploitative practices used with clean energy?