• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    24 days ago

    I think what they’re saying is that it shouldn’t be in steps, the tax rate should increase as income increases.

    So $11 would be taxed at A.2, $12 at A.4, $13 at A.6 and so on. And $11.50 at A.3.

    As it is, it’s more discrete than continuous (from a mathematical perspective). Another problem is that it usually stops. Like where I live, and it tops out at about $250,000.

    • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      23 days ago

      Yeah I get what they mean but that’s much more complex. I suppose that’s what computers are for but it could make it even harder for people to understand and so many people do not understand the current system.

      Definitely agree we need more brackets after the top one. Although this only goes so far, as the more wealthy a person is the more likely their income isn’t classified as income anymore. I’d love to return to post WW2 tax rates on the rich but we need to do something to make them pay some kind of fair share. It’s disgusting what they get away with.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 days ago

      You are just saying “have 1000 or 1m tax brackets” instead of 5. It is not super different other than being more complex.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        You might still be thinking of it as discreet. It would kind of be like having infinite tax brackets.

        But yeah, I too think it would be too confusing.