you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If one earns $10,000 per year, a $2,000 annual tax is 20% of annualized income.

    If one earns $100,000 per year, it’s 2%.

    The less one earns, taxes are a greater proportion of total income.

    Often, flat tax concepts come (or should come with) tax exemptions for actual low-income folks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    A flat tax would be a set percentage of total income. It would cause the rich to pay more since they wouldn't have their deductions and loopholes, that's why there's so much bullshit propaganda against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Even if it works exactly like that, let's say you are poor and barely make enough to live, you still have to give 20% (as an example) to the government, even if you are fucked after and can't pay rent or buy food. If you make 20% more than you need, you end up with nothing left after. Rich people may end up paying more, sure, but a flat tax still screws over the poor as a rule unless there is some provision that it only starts after X income, and you know that threshold will always be set too low.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The rich also have a hell of a lot more to tax. They SHOULD be paying a higher percentage of their wealth in taxes because they've gotten a much greater benefit out of the services those taxes pay for than a poor person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If you make $50k annually and are taxed at a flat 25%, you're paying $12,500, leaving you with $37,500.

    If you make $500k annually are are taxed at a flat 25%, you're paying $125,000, leaving you with $375,000.

    It's a hell of a lot more difficult to support yourself and your family on $37,500 than it is on $375,000.

  • source
  • parent