What taxes would reduce the cost for Americans if they were eliminated?

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

I just want social security to go away. Then I’ll be happy. Complete scam. Income tax, property tax, income tax, inheritance tax and payroll tax are necessary evils. Social security is just complete BS. We give the government a free loan. I’d rather just have the money to invest.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

And what happens when the stock market tanks or to those who can’t afford to invest?

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

The stock market doesn't tank permanently. If everyone invested in a simple index fund and started moving that money out of the market 10ish years before retirement, they'd get so much more than they do from SS.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> If everyone invested You may notice that not everyone does that now. And not everyone did that before Social Security began. So it’s an unrealistic hypothesis. Social Security exists because not everyone is capable of managing their finances well enough to set aside enough for retirement independently. Besides, if Social Security didn’t exist, prudent investors might still be putting some portion of their retirement investment into safer investments, such as federal bonds.

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

So we can educate people so they know more, or we can "take care of them" so they'll always vote for our party, even that bankrupts the country *and* gives the people we claim we want to help less money over all. Obviously option 2 is preferable.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> we can educate people so they know more We haven’t proven successful at that, at least with regard to personal finance. > they'll always vote for our party That obviously hasn’t happened. > even that bankrupts the country and gives the people we claim we want to help less money over all. That’s a scare tactic. Social Security hasn’t bankrupted the country. It’s only threatening to provide less money because people like you stand in the way.

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

It's "threatening to provide less money" because they're paying out more than they take in. Simple math.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> It's "threatening to provide less money" because they're paying out more than they take in. Simple math. But the reason that’s happening is because of Congress’s refusal to take common sense steps such as raising or eliminating the cap on Social Security payroll/self-employment taxes. And they’re doing that because of people like you who want it to fail because you’re only thinking of what you personally could do and not what the American people overall need.

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

Wait wait wait. The pro-SS side is insistent that SS is an investment, and you get what you pay in. "Raise taxes and take more money from workers to pay me" doesn't work if *they get more when they pay more*. So either you didn't fix the system, or you finally kill this myth that SS is an investment and you get what you pay in. Which way are you hoping this will go? Are you ready to make it clear that SS is really just old people welfare?

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> The pro-SS side is insistent that SS is an investment, and you get what you pay in That’s not the pro-SS side. It’s the naive side that doesn’t understand it, and includes both pro and anti Social Security people. The pro-Social Security side understands that it’s taxpayer-funded insurance, not an investment. That’s why people who have barely paid in can still get disability coverage, and people who die before they’re eligible to take retirement benefits get zilch. Yes, people who put in more get more in retirement benefits, but it’s not linear. It’s weighted towards the lower income getting a higher coverage compared to what they’ve paid in than people at the high end. If it’s politically necessary to increase benefits to those paying more as a result of the cap being removed, that can be done without making it proportional to how much they pay in.

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

>it’s taxpayer-funded insurance That's not how insurance works. It's welfare. >If it’s politically necessary to increase benefits to those paying more as a result of the cap being removed, that can be done without making it proportional to how much they pay in. And thereby completely removing the myth that recipients are getting "what I paid in!!", making it clear that it's old people welfare. Which the old people will not tolerate.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> That's not how insurance works. It's welfare. Now you’re just engaging in rhetorical word juggling. It may not be an exact match to private insurance, but it’s close enough. > And thereby completely removing the myth that recipients are getting "what I paid in!!", making it clear that it's old people welfare. You say welfare, others say progressive. It benefits people at all income levels so it’s not welfare for the indigent seniors, though it’s certainly motivated by it. To the extent that people believe they’re getting what they paid in, I’m all for correcting their misconceptions. But if you think people won’t tolerate supporting the welfare of senior citizens, you’re mistaken. It was founded on that basis, and people support it. No one expects someone living solely on Social Security to afford world travel. But we do expect it to support the poorest seniors while providing some benefits to all seniors (among those qualifying for benefits).

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Unless it was at that point the stock market tanked

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

That's why I say "10ish". It's not exact. You wait for the market to recover, then move your money out. The exact thing people with 401's are supposed to do now. This would be much better than depending on the SS pyramid scheme (which, incidentally, is about the break down because the next generation of payers is smaller than the generation of payees).

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Yes, waiting…a great idea for the elderly 🤦🏻‍♂️

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

Really? People frequently work into their mid 60s. Waiting from 55 to 60 to make this change isn't really a major burden.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Waiting from 65 to 70 is a major burden though

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

OK, you're obviously not even reading what I wrote. Have a nice day.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

I read it. It’s a very, very bad idea

Reply

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

Investing doesn’t just mean stocks. Can be bonds, real estate, etc.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Ok…what happens next time there’s a real estate bubble burst?

Reply

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

That’s why you diversify? All I’m talking about is an opt-out. It should be an optional program. I don’t need the government to handle my retirement for me.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

40% of Americans don’t even have a savings account. And you think people are going to diversify their portfolios?? Also, we tried this before. Most old people were dirt poor and lived out their last years in squalor. That’s what we created social security in the first place. Absolutely terrible idea, friend. Practically and politically.

Reply

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

Opt-out after a certain income level maybe? Financial education in school made as mandatory as algebra? I’m open to trying to find a solution here.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

The solution is the exact opposite of what you suggested. Instead of wealthier people opting out, the current cap should be removed. This would make the fund solvent until every newborn baby is dead from old age. Social Security has been the most successful social program in the history of the US

Reply

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

Interesting take. No cap to social security would certainly be incredibly unpopular and I can’t see that ever happening. I guess that’s how we end up in the grid lock we are in. In the middle with neither solution quite working. Why do you think so few Americans think about savings account? 40% of Americans are not in poverty, so where’s the disconnect there?

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Removing the cap would only apply to the wealthiest 15% of Americans. Just because someone’s bot technically at or below the poverty line, doesn’t mean they have money to invest or save. The reason people don’t have savings accounts is because, simply put…they don’t save. This is why social security is necessary and why it’s so effective

Reply

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

Is it over-consumerism or lack of financial acuity though?

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

It’s a lot of things. But even if more people could afford to save, and did, they can’t save enough to live for the last decade or two of their lives. It’s too much money. And if you let anyone who can afford to opt out do so, the whole thing collapses. Then, we go back to old people working til they physically can’t…and there aren’t enough jobs that would provide such gainful employment

Reply

[-]

Hobotronacus@reddit

Elderly poverty rates prior to social security's inception was over 35%. If you wish to live in a society where millions of old and disabled people are living in the streets and begging for scraps of food, sure getting rid of social security sounds like a good idea. It's a relatively small price to pay considering it caps out at $14k\~ a year. If you don't make enough money to reach the cap, don't fool yourself into thinking you won't benefit from collecting social security. If you do make enough money to meet the cap, shut the fuck up and put something back into society, you wouldn't be earning that much money without the millions of other people who keep society functioning around you while earning far less than you do.

Reply

[-]

unknownkoalas@reddit

I do put money back in society? Through donations and volunteer work that I’ve chosen. Social security isn’t charity. It’s something that would be highly illegal if private industry did it because it’s anti consumer.

Reply

[-]

Hobotronacus@reddit

Yeah I'm sure your charity could totally take the place of programs like social security and medicare as an effective means to combat poverty and cover the healthcare needs of the elderly. Keep patting yourself on the back for rounding up on your morning coffee purchases to benefit literacy programs or some shit. If you actually care enough to volunteer time or donate any substantial amount to charity, something you need to realize is your taxes that fund social programs are going much further than anything else you could personally do to reduce poverty and save lives. Charity, while a noble cause, is extremely limited in its capabilities to provide solutions to these issues. Being angry that the government is forcing you to contribute to programs that are extremely effective at solving the problems you yourself claim to care about, while you advocate for less effective and often more costly methods to solves these same problems, is asinine.

Reply

[-]

TheBimpo@reddit

This argument hinges on the idea that the public services administered by those taxes don’t outweigh the negligible costs to the taxpayers. Of course it would save an individual money to not pay income taxes, but what services are provided through them and how does that person benefit?

Reply

[-]

Toddsburner@reddit

Negligible cost? Is 30-40% of your income negligible to you?

Reply

[-]

MyUsername2459@reddit

People aren't paying 30% to 40% of their income in taxes.

Reply

[-]

Toddsburner@reddit

I am, and that’s not uncommon. Most people making $50K+ are close to there. Effective federal income tax rate on my salary ($135K) is 18.2% Payroll tax is 7.7% State Income Tax 4.4% State Family Leave Tax 0.9% Total effective tax rate is 31.2% for income taxes, which doesn’t even count property or sales. When those are factored in it’s over 40% of my income going to the government.

Reply

[-]

im-on-my-ninth-life@reddit

> This argument hinges on the idea that the public services administered by those taxes don’t outweigh the negligible costs to the taxpayers. And that "idea" is often *true*.

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

I'm totally cool with income tax and sales tax. I'm not cool with property taxes. It's silly to pay off a mortgage and "own" a piece of land but yet if you stop making payments someone can take it from you.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Check your property tax statement. It shows what services they fund. Usually, things like schools, parks, police, fire dept, library, transit…. You cool without those things?

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

I'm a renter so I don't have a property tax statement. I'd rather those things be paid off on income tax though.

Reply

[-]

anysizesucklingpigs@reddit

What if someone owns a property but doesn’t have an income? They still use roads, services like police and fire, etc. Or what if someone owns property in more than one county? How do you decide how much that person owes?

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

>What if someone owns a property but doesn’t have an income? They still use roads, services like police and fire, etc. Some people don't pay. Children use the roads and are under the protection of the fire department, right? >Or what if someone owns property in more than one county? How do you decide how much that person owes? They aren't using both county resources equally. Just tax their income and call it a day. If we start getting picky about usage, should mariners pay less property taxes because they are not home as much as everyone else? It would just be simpler to use income tax.

Reply

[-]

anysizesucklingpigs@reddit

Currently, the owner of the property on which a child lives pays property taxes. How would a property owner with no income pay for their share of services? Re: the second one—I was asking how, if someone owns property in more than one county, each county decides how much to charge them. It sounds like you’re envisioning something based on usage? So if I own a rental property my renters would use the roads and services. But if I, the property owner, am never there myself should I just not pay taxes?

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

No, I'm saying usage is a bad and overly complicated way to do it in both scenarios, the child and the absentee landlord or mariner. Just tax income, capital gains and such.

Reply

[-]

anysizesucklingpigs@reddit

That still doesn’t address the question of how to tax people who own property but *don’t have income.* No job. No capital gains. Living off savings. How is it fair for that property owner to use the same services as everyone around them but not kick anything in because they literally don’t have money coming in? I’m interested in this topic because I live in a state with no income tax and our idiot governor now wants to abolish property taxes altogether. We’re all looking at each other wondering how this is supposed to work 🤣🤣

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

Sales tax works for that too.

Reply

[-]

anysizesucklingpigs@reddit

Not really. Not if a resident doesn’t spend money. Or buy anything in their jurisdiction. It’s entirely subjective. Real property tax is favored because it’s stable—we know how many land parcels exist within a county and state for example, and by assigning a millage rate and value to each parcel gov’ts can budget for services based on the dollar amount assessed. Not the case when govt’s have to budget based on whether residents choose to go shopping at home or elsewhere and what they may or may not buy, if they buy anything at all. Or whether they might work X number of hours, if they at all. Or how well their investments might perform, if they have any at all.

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

Elderly get to a point where they no longer really buy anything either, I suppose it's tricky.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Why?

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

I don't like property taxes.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Thanks for the elaboration

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

It's silly to pay off a mortgage and "own" a piece of land but yet if you stop making payments someone can take it from you.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

There are places with minimal property taxes. But bear in mind…you get what you pay for. That’s the price you pay for living in a city.

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

I think the taxes are worth raising, the services worth funding. Just through a different means.

Reply

[-]

WrongJohnSilver@reddit

That's, of course, the true shady philosophical truth: there's no objective meaning to owning land. Land can only be agreed upon by people as being owned by someone, but cannot be declared owned outside of people agreeing on it. So, some authority must always be the person to say yes, you own land, and we'll defend your right to say you own land. And that defense (and infrastructure) cost money. To say you own it without any tax would require that you're willing to defend it from, say, a business or a government who looks at your land and says hey, free real estate.

Reply

[-]

im-on-my-ninth-life@reddit

> cannot be declared owned outside of people agreeing on it Well yeah, but it can be defended. If you contest my ownership claim and try to attack me with guns/weapons to establish your claim then I can fight back.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> It's silly to pay off a mortgage and "own" a piece of land but yet if you stop making payments someone can take it from you. That’s because you have a simplistic view of ownership. Even in feudal times, only the King truly owned land; the others were vassals. And even then, someone could take land from the King (such as the Norman invasion or War of the Roses, ignoring the issue of “rightful heir”). Ownership means the primary right to control usage. It doesn’t mean you can’t be forced to turn over an asset to pay an obligation. You can lose ownership to the mortgage holder as easily as to the taxing authority.

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

Taxing someone off the money they'd receive *if* they sold something but haven't is ridiculous. I'd switch property taxes for an income tax in a heart beat. The automatic annual increase in property taxes is insane -- at least let me get a raise before you take more of my money.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

Just think of all the taxes you’d save if you were paid in stock or stock options instead of cash. Make it enough, and you wouldn’t even have to sell the stock. Just use it as collateral to take out loans for living expenses. Oh, wait, that’s how billionaires already avoid taxes.

Reply

[-]

jeefra@reddit

Many places, the property tax is the primary income stream which makes sense. Living someplace might be "free" for you with no mortgage, but fire protection, police, road maintenance, infrastructure all cost money to the city still.

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

I would prefer that come from income tax.

Reply

[-]

quixoft@reddit

I'm the opposite because I can choose the amount of property tax I pay. A state income tax and they are taking my money regardless. At least with property tax I can lessen it by living in a more modest home and cheaper area.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

> At least with property tax I can lessen it by living in a more modest home and cheaper area. You can lessen income tax by taking a lower paying job. I don’t see the difference.

Reply

[-]

jeefra@reddit

But even people without jobs use and benefit from those services.

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

That's okay. People without property still deserve to use the roads and police protection. Same thing.

Reply

[-]

jeefra@reddit

People without property generally end up paying property tax anyway through rent. It directly scales with the size of a city. Why are you okay with sales tax? Why is it okay for the government to take their cut of my money when I earn it and also take a cut when I spend it?

Reply

[-]

JimBones31@reddit

Hey, that's a valid point. I'm okay with changing that too. Maybe just have the taxes where we tax money someone "earns". Like income, capital gains on interest and from stocks and stuff. That directly scales with wealth. Though I'm totally in favor of tax brackets.

Reply

[-]

BitterPillPusher2@reddit

I'm OK with property taxes, since you benefit from them while you own the property. But I think property taxes should be based on what I paid for the property. Some states do that, but I'm in Texas. We have some of the highest property taxes in the country. They re-assess the value of our property every year. If it goes up, our taxes go up. And it goes up every year. My property taxes are now more than my mortgage. When the value goes down, which has happened the last couple of years, my taxes theoretically go down too. But I was essentially taxed on unrealized gains.

Reply

[-]

im-on-my-ninth-life@reddit

It shouldn't matter "which" ones, I want the total tax burden on individual people to be reduced to 10% or less.

Reply

[-]

Weightmonster@reddit

Taxes on gameshow winnings. It’s a real downer to know that the person winning a $50,000 car is paying at least $20k to keep it.

Reply

[-]

jeophys152@reddit

In America people say that we value hard work. It’s bullshit. We value wealth, at least according to our tax code. I would eliminate income taxes on wages for the bottom 90% of Americans. Income tax rates for rental income, long term capital gains, and dividends are currently capped so I would eliminate those caps (and any other wealth loopholes). I would add a VAT (value added tax) which is paid like a sales tax but it is a tax when something goes through a process that adds value to it. This would only be added after ensuring that everyone makes enough to afford the basic necessities in life.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

I don’t think there’s any cap on rental income. It’s taxes as ordinary income.

Reply

[-]

jeophys152@reddit

I get reit dividends. They are taxed lower

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

That’s kind of a step removed. REITs are trust, roughly analogous to corporations. So if you made furniture as a sole proprietorship, you’d pay tax on the net income as ordinary income. But if you invested in, say, William-Sonoma (which owns Pottery Barn), you’d pay capital gains tax rates on the dividends.

Reply

[-]

RioTheLeoo@reddit

Sales tax imo. It’s just a tax on the poor, but so many municipal services rely on them that there would need to be major reform to make eliminating them viable

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

>so that wealth doesn’t just stagnate in the same few families forever Rich people can mostly avoid the inheritance tax. It really hits middle class families, especially those with a family farm or small business, and that hits minority families hardest. They end up having to sell the farm/business to pay the taxes. Bye-bye any hope of passing wealth down to your children.

Reply

[-]

RioTheLeoo@reddit

I would hope we can reform inheritance taxes then to eliminate loopholes and make sure they’re confined to those with more wealth than their descendants could ever hope to reasonably need

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

Who made you the arbiter on how much people "need" and what's fair to pass on to your descendants? Generally Washington thinks it "needs" as much as it can get away with, because there's always another building that needs to be named after a Congressman.

Reply

[-]

BankManager69420@reddit

So glad I live in Oregon. I couldn’t imagine having to pay extra money on anything I buy. I don’t know how people in other states buy cars and electronics especially.

Reply

[-]

Guernica616@reddit

You really can't fathom it?

Reply

[-]

BankManager69420@reddit

Not really. If the price tag says it costs something, then that should be what it costs. I guess if you grew up with it it makes sense, but having never lived somewhere with a tax on sales, the concept is so odd to me.

Reply

[-]

jeophys152@reddit

So you have never bought anything outside of Oregon? The idea of paying a tax beyond the price on the label is so obscure that you really cannot comprehend it? Because that is what you said

Reply

[-]

BankManager69420@reddit

I have a couple times and the tax has always caught me by surprise, and yes it is obscure if you live somewhere where it doesn’t exist. There is a reason that people post on this sub from other places frequently, questioning our sales tax. I never said I couldn’t comprehend it, I said it’s very odd to me.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

Doesn’t OR have a local option meals tax? I don’t know how many municipalities implement it, but have you never come across it?

Reply

[-]

Square-Wing-6273@reddit

I mean, you just factor it into what you are buying.

Reply

[-]

Fuertebrazos@reddit

The sales tax, definitely. Regressive, on the backs of the poor. Property taxes aren't great either, but since the poor don't own much in the way of property, they are less regressive. Same with inheritance taxes. You have to be pretty rich for them to kick in. They are already pretty progressive. But all taxes reduce what people can spend. Repealing any tax would improve people's standard of living. At that point you are simply talking about who pays the taxes. The less income you have, the bigger the impact.

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

The poor pay property taxes in their ever-increasing rent.

Reply

[-]

Fuertebrazos@reddit

Good point.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

I’ll express the most unpopular opinion and say that taxes should be raised, starting with raising the (income) cap on Social Security payroll and self-employment taxes. Our tax burden is middle of the pack as a percentage of GDP. We should be spending more on medical education (not just M.D. programs, but also RN and LPN) and more on medical research. (Why doesn’t the US own more drug patents by paying for the research?) I don’t know enough about the specific economics to say that we should raise taxes to reduce the deficit (not just current year but also paying down debt). But it seems worth discussing.

Reply

[-]

ExplanationNo8603@reddit

Payroll tax, why is a community being taxed to pay me before I'm taxed on the money that was already taxed before I got it

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Payroll taxes fund Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

I don’t think Medicaid is funded by payroll taxes, unless there are some states that do so. My understanding is that only Medicare Part A is funded by payroll taxes. But I’m still learning that stuff (and it’s less important to me since I have mine in place already).

Reply

[-]

crafty_j4@reddit

So does my income tax, unless I’m misunderstanding the separation between the two?

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

You are

Reply

[-]

crafty_j4@reddit

Can you explain further? My pay stubs all say I’m paying taxes toward social security and Medicare.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

https://www.rippling.com/blog/payroll-tax-vs-income-tax

Reply

[-]

crafty_j4@reddit

Thank you. I was under the false impression that payroll taxes were a tax employers paid completely separate from employee compensation. I thought of the parts that are actually payroll tax as just part of income tax.

Reply

[-]

StarSpangleBRangel@reddit

I’m fine with the taxes I pay. Aside from the inheritance tax. Uncle Sam didn’t help me kill grandpa, why should he get a cut?

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

“Uncle Sam” doesn’t impose an inheritance tax. That’s done at the state level, and only 6 states even have it. Alabama isn’t one of them.

Reply

[-]

StarSpangleBRangel@reddit

…Jesus fucking Christ, man. You thought this comment was serious? This comment where I confess to murdering someone? How much more obvious should I have made it? Help me understand how low I need to set the bar to help you.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

Never underestimate the reach of Poe’s Law.

Reply

[-]

jeophys152@reddit

Yes it does. It’s called the estate tax, but the threshold is very high, 13.6 million before it kicks in

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

The Estate Tax is different than an inheritance tax.

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

And both are wrong.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

In my state only .03% of people ever end up paying estate taxes…and they’re all rich as fuck

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

So? I don't believe it is just to take advantage of someone just because they are in the minority.

Reply

[-]

Curmudgy@reddit

It’s no more taking advantage of anyone than any other tax. I’d sooner eliminate the tax on wage income, since people work for that, than eliminate the tax on gifts and estates/inheritances, since the heirs in general are just getting free assets.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Are you rich? If not, don’t worry about it. If you are…then quit your bitching. You’re rich.

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

Sorry, but we aren't going to try and support taking advantage of the minority here. By your logic, I guess we can take advantage of the poorest of our society?

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Yes, just like that…except the exact opposite.

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

Okay, so you support taking advantage of both the poorest and richest people in society. Sorry, I don't agree either is acceptable.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

Only the richest. Because they can afford it. Think about it.

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

Okay, so it becomes fine to discriminate against someone as long as they can afford it. That is pretty problematic.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

“Discriminate”?? Might wanna check the dictionary there, bub. And no, it’s not problematic. Not in the least.

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

I'm aware of the definition: "make an prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people" That is all you are arguing for here.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

What’s problematic is allowing people to accumulate so much wealth that they can control the media, buy companies like Pokeman cards, and influence governments and elections. And even after all that, the rich get the simps of the world to come to their defense. Amazing

Reply

[-]

Lux_Aquila@reddit

Of course they can do all that if they have the money. Its their property, they can do what they want with it. Just like everyone else.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

That’s why they shouldn’t have that much money. No one should.

Reply

[-]

mikebootz@reddit

What’s the difference?

Reply

[-]

SkiAK49@reddit

Estate tax is paid by the estate based off of net value. Also unless the assets is worth 13.99 million or more it isn’t subject to it. The Federal estate tax is a pretty hefty tax though. The top rate is 40%. An Inheritance tax is paid by the person receiving it on what they inherent. Only a handful of states have it but how much you pay is based off of the relationship you have to the deceased person. If your father died and left an inheritance you’d pay less than if it was a friend.

Reply

[-]

jeophys152@reddit

The estate tax is a tax on inheritance. Someone dies and leaves you money (an inheritance) and you pay [a tax] on that money. Please tell me where I am wrong

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

[difference between estate tax and inheritance tax](https://trustandwill.com/learn/estate-tax-vs-inheritance-tax?srsltid=AfmBOoo1X0NlDC5Qh5thwQSrcCCZNdoY-tonQqFXo99w19KMkIJx3kD_)

Reply

[-]

jeophys152@reddit

So the difference is a technicality on if the tax is paid before or after the distribution of the inheritance. Basically the same thing for anyone who isn’t an accountant or a tax attorney.

Reply

[-]

quixoft@reddit

I'm actually good with all my taxes and while I know there is waste that needs cleaning up, what they are supposedly allocated for I'm cool with. Sure, I'll still complain come April 15th when I see the actual bill but we're comfortable so I can't complain too much. I actually wouldn't mind higher taxes for a better education and healthcare system but I have absolutely zero faith our government could accomplish those feats correctly and efficiently so that's pretty much off the table.

Reply

[-]

Danibear285@reddit

Oh, how little experience with government this shows.

Reply

[-]

TipsyBaker_@reddit

We just need to eliminate tax loopholes, making corporations and the mega wealthy pay what they are supposed to. It would be enough of a cash influx we could actually start paying down debt while still extending services

Reply

[-]

cbrooks97@reddit

Corporations do not pay taxes. Corporations' customers pay taxes. Remove those "loopholes" and watch the recession roll in.

Reply

[-]

TipsyBaker_@reddit

Which is why pretty much everywhere else in the world has regulations in place, to avoid companies jacking prices to benefit shareholder profits over everything and everyone else. Recession is already on its way. Acting like we have no options to hold anyone accountable is how we keep ending up in these situations.

Reply

[-]

cavall1215@reddit

I'd prefer an overall simpler tax code with less exceptions and taxing all forms of individual income including capital gains at the same rate that is progressive based on income.

Reply

[-]

spice-cabinet4@reddit

I would prefer a sales tax over income or property tax. Granted everything is over taxed here, currently have a state sales tax, county, sales tax, city sales tax and if it's prepared food a meal tax. (4.3%, 1.2%, 0.5%, 8%). I'm split on property tax, as I can see the benefits for real estate tax, but not on vehicles as I pay a registration fee ever 1-3 years on those.

Reply

[-]

MsPooka@reddit

I think all taxes where everyone is taxed at the same rate should be reduced or eliminated. Raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor. There is no reason that someone making $10 an hour should have to pay sales tax on diapers and milk.

Reply

[-]

RedSolez@reddit

There's no sales tax on groceries in any state I've lived in.

Reply

[-]

PersonalitySmall593@reddit

Nine states have taxes on groceries

Reply

[-]

Dunnoaboutu@reddit

NC does not tax groceries on a state level, but local governments charge 2% on groceries. So everyone state wide pays a tax on groceries, but it’s not listed as one of the 9.

Reply

[-]

RedSolez@reddit

That's outrageous!

Reply

[-]

RSLV420@reddit

I think we should increase the tax rate on the poor and not the rich.

Reply

[-]

CogitoErgoScum@reddit

Property tax. The constitution should have read “…life, liberty, and ~~the purfuit of happineff~~ property.” Living indoors should not be something the government can take from you once you’ve paid for it. Well fine, I’ll just live in my car…. Some places even levy property tax on motor vehicles. You don’t even own the car that you paid sales tax on, paid the state for your tags and your license, paid for a state mandated smog check, and if you’re putting fuel in, they get their cut there too. Either you legitimately own something-in whole or in part-or you do not. If someone takes it away under the threat of violence, that is theft. If someone is collecting protection money from you so your possessions remain unmolested, that is also theft.

Reply

[-]

Dio_Yuji@reddit

OP, take anything you read here with a BIG grain of salt. Judging by the comments, a lot of my fellow Americans don’t understand how taxes work

Reply

[-]

StarSpangleBRangel@reddit

You don’t seem to understand how jokes work, so let’s call it even.

Reply

[-]

BuddhaTheHusky@reddit

Gambling tax. Government doesnt pay when i loose but when i win they take a fat cut.

Reply

[-]

Lanracie@reddit

What tax doesent increase the cost for Americans?

Reply

[-]

Toddsburner@reddit

Payroll Tax should be eliminated, income tax should be reduced. I make $135K/yr - solidly middle class in my area, not better not worse. Last year I paid $42K in income taxes, so not even counting sales or property. It’s absurd. Taxes cost me more than housing, food, and transportation combined and I’m fed up. Of all the taxes though, social security payroll taxes upset me the most. Between the employee and employer portions that is 12.4% *per year* being stolen from me to go into this black hole of a governmental Ponzi scheme. Even if it does pay out someday (which you can’t bank on), social security has a negative inflation adjusted return. AND you’re taxed again on distribution. Imagine how much better of we’d all be if instead the requirement became a minimum contribution to a Roth rather than forced payments to the government? But that will never happen, because the government would lose its power and the culture of dependence it has created.

Reply

[-]

Bastiat_sea@reddit

Labor shouldn't be taxed until it exceeds the median income.

Reply

[-]

deltagma@reddit

That’s an interesting threshold. I’m gonna explore that idea more… I’m a pro-taxes Conservative myself and I believe tax evasion is theft (taxes aren’t theft). I just want my taxes to be used to better the quality of life of the working class

Reply

[-]

CaddyDaddy12@reddit

I think taxation is essential for any government to be effective and efficiently ran. That said I think Income tax is really slimy, especially if you are making less than six figures a year.

Reply

[-]

Maximum_Pound_5633@reddit

Income tax on earned income is slimy (salary, wages, tips commissions etc) not unearned income (gain on investment, dividends, rent, royalties, interest etc)

Reply

[-]

CaddyDaddy12@reddit

Good point here!

Reply

[-]

Dependent_Remove_326@reddit

Your title and question are counter intuitive. Getting rid of Income tax and Social Security tax would save me the most money but I don't see a logical way to get rid of any of them.

Reply

[-]

therealdrewder@reddit

Property taxes shouldn't exist.

Reply

[-]

kempff@reddit

Income tax, inheritance tax, sales tax, for starters.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

151 Comments