this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
1039 points (99.1% liked)

politics

27087 readers
2331 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] angband@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

simple solution, tax rate goes up by margins based on the standard deviation from the last year's income mean. for income more than one standard deviation above the mean, your tax rate for that margin is the percentile rank of your income compared to the last year's incomes. something like that would be fair. then mandate certain percentages be spent on education, welfare, etc. anything left over in the budget from the last year gets split evenly among all taxpayers.

[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's actually a really simple and neat solution. My only worry is there's minor possibility that it could be abused, but not nearly as much as current systems are.

[–] angband@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

yeah, loans and hising income.overseas, stuff like that. guarantee 5% for the irs budget and regulate them to track down income tax schemes.

there would be some struggle, but things would level out after a couple of decades, and head towards real prosperity.

of course the idea is rough, you'd want narrow margins, and the ability shift it if there aren't enough high earners, and to apply the same scheme to corps too. all sorts of edges cases and fail points to consider.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here's the problem: Zuckerberg and Bezos have an income of $1/year.

Of course, they also earn a tonne of shares, but you can't tax that until they cash out. Which they don't, because they don't have to - if they need cash, they take a loan, meaning they have negative income.

And if you start taxing unrealised gains, they'll think of yet another method of ignoring it, while you'd be killing all the middle-class people who've invested money in stock.

[–] angband@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

bezos takes a smallish salary, I don't care about that myth, or them, or unrealized gains. we need to rebalance the tax system. if unrealized gains are really such a loophole, then tax borrowing against it. This would hurt small borrowers too. so what?

the rich man loan problem is a red herring. if we ever rebalanced the system, there would also be political will to close loopholes. thus tax code can be directed at large borrowers or some other solution. your response is the "oh it is hopeless so don't consider it" crap brought up on reddit every time this subject comes up.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

bezos takes a smallish salary, I don’t care about that myth, or them, or unrealized gains. we need to rebalance the tax system

I agree, but you can't "not care" about these things unless you want to bankrupt the working class.

your response is the “oh it is hopeless so don’t consider it” crap brought up on reddit every time this subject comes up.

I didn't say "it's hopeless", I said it's extremely difficult to do that without fucking over regular people.

And if it's something that's "brought up every time this subject comes up", then you'd think there's some merit to it, no?

[–] angband@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

your statement doesn't follow from mine. bankrupt.the working class? they would be in the proposed tax margin.

you are just gibbering because taxes.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you tried reading what I wrote, you'd see where it follows from your comment.

You're just parroting the age old "tax the rich" without a second thought to the pitfalls and risks there.

[–] angband@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

even if you consider moving the goal posts to include capital gains, most working class, earning far below the mean, as median income in the us lags the mean significantly, most investments are tax deferred accounts covered under legislation already.

you've moved the goalposts to "taxing unrealized gains" by billionaires to evade the essential truth that tax margins are out of whack.

then you only continue to "discuss" that far off goalpost. you are a troll.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

even if you consider moving the goal posts to include capital gains

How is including capital gains "moving goal posts"? What are you talking about?

you’ve moved the goalposts to “taxing unrealized gains” by billionaires to evade the essential truth that tax margins are out of whack.

WTF? I didn't, the other guy did! Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment? I'm so confused...