I think taxes should be based on a 5-year rolling average, to ease the burden for people who have high income only once in their life. Winning the lottery or patenting an invention that makes you rich is the American dream. Let's tax high earners but show some lenience for folks who have a once in a lifetime windfall.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 days ago (6 children)

How much is that in percentages of their income, disregarding artificially deflated incomes of the rich?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (4 children)

    Why do you think that matters more than how much they contribute?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Your question is tied to the idea that their contribution is only contrived of their income taxes, and ignores the fact that 2 people working the same hours contributing the same amount don't receive the same income.

    If you want equal contributions from all income taxes them you would have to have equal pay for all jobs.

    "But my job contributes more to society". No it doesn't.

    The doctor needs a roof just like the roofer needs a colonoscopy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 2 days ago*

    “But my job contributes more to society”. No it doesn’t.

    It literally, mathematically, does if their wage is higher. Even if there were no tax progression, they pay more taxes, which the society uses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    Because the bottom 50% couldn't pay 40% of all income tax, they'd have a negative net income. That's why tax brackets exist, once your basic needs are met you can contribute more to society as a whole. It sucks to pay more if you're earning above median, but it's the cost of living in a society.

  • source
  • parent