this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
972 points (93.2% liked)

Antiwork

7688 readers
7 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Spread this OC far and wide.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unfreeradical 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please justify your claim that increasing the marginal tax rate for one bracket requires doing so for all.

Also note, even taking your claim on its merits, those in lower brackets benefit more greatly from spending on social programs. A household may experience a small rise in taxes offset by a large gain from in social spending.

[–] darkseer 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Realistically? The number of people in the top tax bracket. There are less than a thousand reported in the US. Even if you give them an average of half a billion dollar incomes each it only adds up to around 5 billion dollars total. Not much. But, if you take the working population of the US and an average income of 30,000 dollars you get a total of 9 trillion dollars to work with. No matter how you work it there will always be more water in a shallow lake than a deep puddle.

And other ways to increase taxes on them sound equally attractive until you take a 80% hit on your 401k when you retire or your property taxes spike.

[–] unfreeradical 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Money is not a resource of fixed supply.

Taxing the rich is not offered as a panacea to solve all problems, and no one serious about the idea has framed it so narrowly as you have done.

One quite natural benefit, which you seem not to have considered, of taxing the rich, is beginnig to assuage the severe inequality that affords immensely imbalanced power and privilege to a tiny cohort of society.