a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  2882 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 4 Men with 4 Very Different Incomes Open Up About the Lives They Can Afford

    When your taxes are literally negative and you think you're paying too much, you've been completely indoctrinated into a mindset that touches reality in no places.

I think this helps to highlight a big problem in tax policy though. Namely, that almost every state, including all the Bluest Blues (including in CA, where they're set to increase tobacco taxes once again), have regressive tax structures. Therefore, even when the fed is only charging you payroll and you're getting the EIC, you might still be paying as high as 15% at home. What does a rate payer care where the money is going. They only see that their paycheck isn't going as far as they think it should, because it's getting eaten up at an incredible rate by The State.





kleinbl00  ·  2882 days ago  ·  link  ·  

And the fact that "sin taxes" hit them even harder doesn't help. Hate your job because FICA sucks down 30% of it? Pay 40% on top of your liquor and 60% on top of your cigarettes and feel better!

blackbootz  ·  2882 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's an excellent point. Regressive taxation, even if those funds are efficiently redistributed, still does a fair amount of damage to the perception of taxes as a means to level the playing field for the dispossessed. Now we just have to convince rich people to take on a larger share of their income as a tax burden! That should be simple. /s

b_b  ·  2880 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's not so simple though. Sin taxes kill the poor, but how do we eliminate them without encouraging the behavior once again? Smoking has decreased a lot since taxes have been raised and raised again, which, although shitty for the welfare recipients who smoke, is probably a net benefit to the economy, since smoking is such a public health boondoggle. There's no way to make those taxes not hit poor people. The key is finding a way to reinvest the money in the communities who need it. Unfortunately, that's not how we've chosen to allocate resources. The lottery situation is well known, where legislatures promise big gains, but then just end up cutting the general fund in response to higher revenues; that has happened across the board in every region and political persuasion. I think sin taxes are only effective if the money is specifically earmarked for reinvestment in communities. It's a terrible shame that it's just so easy to raise revenue by upping the tobacco tax, or introducing a soda tax or whatever. These are real problems that taxes can help solve, but only if they're applied in a way that helps the people that are paying the tax.