• alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      5 months ago

      Honestly, I really don’t understand why a populist left party doesn’t pursue this.

      No tax on income below $100K and no tax on wealth, property and inheritance below $1M.

      Or choose some other figures.

      It seems like it would be a slam dunk to get voter support.

      • FreakinSteve@lemmy.worldBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        There are several very similar issues that are all slam dunks, and the fact that they aren’t pursued by the Democrat party is proof that they are part of the same capitalist gang as the GOP. There is no voter that would be against banning lobbyist bribery from corporations, but that is never a campaign point. The few progressive voices that we have still insist that they have to work from within the Democrat party and there is simply no way that they will ever gain any foothold that way. I insist that right now, when the Democrat party is the most powerless, is the time for progressives to break off into their own party while they are seated in Congress. The Democrat Party can join or die.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s been my thoughts as well.

        Eliminate income tax on anyone making less than, say 500,000 per year. Then aggressively tax wealth and those making more.

        Is this a MASSIVE shake up? Absolutely! Would it likely be a bit messy? Definitely!

        But we are at a point where such fundamental change is necessary

      • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This isn’t unheard of, though the income figure is usually lower. In my country it’s some 14k I think? The tax is still quite low for the next income bracket though.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          True, but the number of voters in that income bracket is minuscule.

          It should be increased enough to cover significant numbers of voters to be politically popular

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          This seems pretty punitive, considering the poorest in society need the money immediately, not as a lump sum refund once per year.

          Here (Australia) the tax free threshold is baked into your tax withholding amount.

          • Pyr@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s really the only way with how the system is set up at the moment. There’s no way to tell if someone is working 3 jobs paying 15k per year each, so each paycheck is taxed and if you claim you only made 15k because it really was one job not 3, you get your money back, otherwise you would have to claim all your income from all the sources and then they keep the taxes.

            They could change the system but then if you inadvertantly make more than the minimum and you said you probably wouldn’t you would have to pay that tax at the end of the year rather than get a rebate and they would probably charge interest.

            • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              You can claim the tax free threshold for withholding purposes on 1 job in Australia. The others you need to withhold tax on any money earnt.

              However, in my opinion technology being what it is now, I don’t see a reason the tax office couldn’t just direct businesses to withhold a certain amount based on overall earnings. May be a touch more complicated, but most businesses sending this information to the ATO throughout the year anyway…

              There definitely are ways around this problem.

              But not with paper forms, and it seems the US are in the dark ages when it comes to tax administration.