This is just laughable to me. We already lose hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year because taxpayers, mostly high earners, don’t pay the taxes they owe, in large part because the Republican Party has tried to shrink and strangle the IRS for decades. People whine about deficits while simultaneously wrecking the government agency that brings in the vast majority of government revenue. Who cares if Republicans are even considering a return to slightly higher tax rates for the people at the top when Republicans are determined to cut the IRS workforce in half and take away Biden Admin. funds earmarked for modernization? This effort in itself is estimated to cost us trillions in lost revenue over the next decade, both from the high earners who already weren’t paying or even filing and all of the people who will now join them since there will be even less fear of enforcement from the IRS. This so-called “debate” among Republicans about tax rates on high earners is a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing of practical effect. It’s just a pathetic fig leaf for their plans to gut Medicaid, SNAP and other programs so they can extend Trump’s tax cuts.
Also, letting a tax cut expire is simply not the same thing as proactively raising taxes on the wealthy. I DO think the shifting policy positions between Repubs and Democrats is really fascinating right now, but (I hope) it's going to take a lot more than passive "vibes populism" to really win over the independent/Dem base. I also find the last line from Bannon pretty telling - it's never about doing what's good for Americans; it's all just 'destroy the libs' nonsense. I'm so tired of it.
Exactly! Even if they say they are going to tax the rich, the rich know how to get out of paying taxes with all the loopholes, so it's just another big lie.
I also don’t want us to forget about the government’s plan to deport millions of immigrants, undocumented or not, whether they’ve committed a crime or not, whether they’re hardworking or not. Undocumented immigrants alone contribute tens of billions of dollars each year to federal, state and local coffers in the form of various taxes. How will all of that be replaced?
Exactly. And all the “waste, fraud, and abuse” they cut were really just government programs that had a very high return on investment. So it will actually cost the government something. All while Republicans in Congress remain complacent…
You are so right. There is a lot of data out there that shows unequivocally that with programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Head Start, etc., each dollar spent returns many times that in benefits to society at large. I wish Sharon would do a post about that sometime.
Economist Kathryn Edwards has a great post about this today: "Over the next ten years Congress could start a universal paid leave program, universal free childcare for all children ages 0 - 5, two free meals at school for every public school student in the US, and establish a minimum income for children through the Child Tax Credit and the total score is $2.8 trillion. You could do all that AND have enough money to pay back Social Security for the size of the tax bill that Republicans are trying to pass—with $100 billion to spare."
They don’t believe Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid should exist? And I’m confused, non-profits should provide these services or the states should?
Yes. There are people that believe the FEDERAL government does not exist for these programs. If these services were to exist, it would be provided by state programming that’s voted on or best case scenario: voluntaryism or the absence of force.
When Trump says economic pain is like "maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know?" what he should be saying is "maybe billionaires will have 12 mansions instead of 15, and still have more wealth than they could spend in ten lifetimes, you know?" But somehow he was elected twice.
It shouldn’t be about asking children to sacrifice their toys before asking people with obscene wealth to contribute meaningfully to the society that enabled their success in the first place.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole tax situation. Yes, Democrats' base has increasingly been wealthier and more educated compared to Republicans sliding in the opposite direction on both axes. But I think the partisan divide isn't so much about income per se - it's about trust in the government to responsibly use those funds in taxpayers' interest.
How about this for a Rorschach test: Some people fall for outlandish unproven accusations from Elon Musk and his DOGE about fraud and waste because the claims fit their bias, while others see DOGE as simply a conservative power grab because Musk can't and won't show receipts for his work. The deficit isn't just about spending, which is very difficult to change, but about revenue, which is just a matter of getting the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share. DOGE has gutted the government’s ability to seek revenue specifically from the wealthiest Americans. This has driven Progressive Democrats crazy, that working class people have seemingly shrugged about a tax revenue structure that benefits them. That's Bernie's entire thing.
As many people have said whenever the topic of DOGE comes up, but it’s worth repeating: fraud and waste exist. We all want to minimize it as much as possible. But not at the expense of honest people who rely on the government services they pay for.
I want to give working class Trump voters the benefit of the doubt, I really do. But it makes you wonder - if they sign up for peanuts from Trump while he gives out meaningful benefits to the ultra wealthy, meanwhile Bernie's singleminded focus on helping the working class didn't resonate..is it just because of social issues? Does that suggest that denying rights for people who are perceived as "other" has more political power than putting more money in your own bank account?
I just want people to be sane about this. The system is so broken. People who can't afford more should get a tax break. People who can afford more should get a tax increase.
Regardless of political background, we should all support: progressive taxation based on ability to pay; closing tax loopholes that only benefit the ultra-wealthy; protecting and strengthening social safety nets; ensuring corporations pay their fair share; and prioritizing economic policies that benefit the majority rather than just the top 1%. If we could all agree on these basic principles, maybe we could start rebuilding a functional government that works for everyone, not just those with enough money to buy influence.
Tangent: here's my personal story about income tax this year. Let's discuss the concept of tax brackets. I understand how progressive taxation works - only the additional dollars earned above each threshold get taxed at the higher rate, not your entire income. But even with this understanding, these arbitrary thresholds still create strange incentives and outcomes. What's wrong with a smooth graph that gradually increases the percentage without these stark dividing lines?
Historically, the U.S. adopted the bracketed system in 1913 with the 16th Amendment, starting with just seven brackets. Over time, the number of brackets has fluctuated dramatically - from a high of 56 brackets in 1918 to as few as two in the late 1980s. The original rationale was simplicity in calculation before computers, but many economists have advocated for a continuous tax function that would eliminate these arbitrary thresholds. Countries like Germany already use formulas rather than strict brackets to calculate income tax, which creates a smoother progression.
I have worked for the same project for 12 years, but that project has changed corporate ownership 3 times, meaning I have had 4 different employers (and 8 different work emails!), ranging from scrappy to now super corporate. Becoming more corporate had trade offs for the first 3 employers: added benefits but also restrictions on things like raises. But this last acquisition that came in August 2024 recategorized my role in a complicated way - I'm still technically a full-time employee, but I'm now excluded from all the benefits that people in other roles at the company enjoy, only because the technicality that my year-round full-time position is specific to a project. Nothing about my job requirement changed, but my benefits were converted to cash, meaning I got a pay raise that compensated me for the market value of the benefits I would no longer have.
Several meetings with HR later, when I made my case that this was effectively a pay cut because my additional income pushed me into a higher tax bracket and took away the tax advantages of the benefits I lost, I was told there was no negotiation, I could take the offer or resign. Being that everyone else I know in the entertainment industry has faced horrible options finding work for the past 2 years, my options were to go along with it or be unemployed for many months at least. Sure enough, even though this new arrangement was only for August through December out of the year, I was able to calculate that instead of what most people would expect would be standing still (a modest 3ish percent raise to keep up with cost of living) I was handed an 11% pay cut in terms of what actually stays in my bank account. That's because not only do I report more money as income than when that income came in the form of benefits, but that additional income gets taxed at a significantly higher rate than my base salary was.
Even despite this personal pain, I realize that I am fortunate and healthy enough that I should be contributing more, while folks with mouths to feed and debts that weren't their fault are hurting. I think we all need to look beyond our immediate self-interest to what builds a better society for everyone. Let’s not forget there are selfish reasons to want the best for everyone, too. But that would require a lot of change in the way we raise our children to think about government and taxes.
I completely agree with your last statement regarding looking beyond our immediate self interest to what bulids a better society for everyone. I live in an area where we have have people who are barely getting by all the way to multiple billionaires. I see the gluttony and selfishness of the billlionaires and it has led me to believe that too much money is the root of all evil. No one "needs" a billiion dollars. If people were less selfish, our society woulde be better off as a whole. Think of all that could be accomplished if more billionaires were like Mackenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos' ex wife who donates billions to nonprofits). We could help solve homelesness, crime, world hunger, cure diseases, etc. The entire world would be a better place for everyone. Unfortunately, most of these people do not think past their own personal self interests. They act like they are better than everyone just because they have wealth. Other countries may have higher taxes but people do not go bankrupt over health care expenses. How do we get people to understand that helping others helps us all and makes for a better world? Or are people just too selfish and evil to care?
Thanks Sarah, yeah it’s crazy to think that so many societal problems could be cured if hoarded wealth was redirected. MacKenzie Scott is a standout example of what that kind of wealth could accomplish when used for good.
I think where we keep falling into a trap though is relying on people to act altruistically. It shouldn't depend on the moral character of those who become billionaires, especially since that group tends to only reach that status by prioritizing their own self-interest in the first place. The system that creates billionaires often rewards ruthless business practices and tax avoidance, not generosity.
What we really need is a system that helps average voters understand the complex issues on their ballots, with people like them helping explain what's actually in their interest. When people enter the voting booth, they shouldn't be relying on the last political ad they saw or misinformed tweet they read. Imagine if instead, a trusted peer handed them a well-researched "cheat sheet" saying, "Here are the options that will actually benefit people in our situation, and here's the work I did to verify this."
We can't count on billionaires having a moral awakening - we need to build systems that don't require their generosity in the first place. Healthcare shouldn't depend on philanthropy when taxation and proper social programs could solve these problems systematically.
Timothy -- You hit the nail on the head with so many points here. As always--keep pushing the message.
I would actually blame, in large part, the rise of institutional evangelism over the past several decades for much of the tax and wealth debate. While many of the super (grossly) wealthy in our nation are themselves non-religious...they do like the message espoused and promoted by evangelical leaders/pastors: "God determines who among us will best manage wealth, then endows those individuals." This, of course is a manufactured message, with absolutely no biblical basis. But, the mostly undereducated masses who see their religious leaders as infallible (since they're speaking 'for' God)--eat this sh** up. Why? Because taxes and government and politics and money are confusing. So, the simple answer is...it's God's will.
This, in my opinion, is why we see less-advantaged people (en masse??) voting against their own financial self-interest.
I know you've said a LOT of great things in there.
Two of the things really stand out to me: it amazes me how a lot of people don't realize that they can be selfish but also use that self-service for the good of all society. Like - I want a cleaner, healthier, safer, more fair place for everyone, and one of the big reasons is - I want to experience those things for myself and my loved ones. What's good for the whole IS good for me. Or can be. I think the faster we manage to transition into a mindset that what's best for others is quite often great for us, too, the better off we'll be. I've never understood how even those who genuinely don't have a lot of empathy for others can't see this. Even the extremely selfish (and extremely wealthy) can be both self-serving and create a healthy environment for others while reaping the benefits of that. But their sickness is that they only want total power, control and wealth, so there's nothing to be done for that mindset. I also have to remember that quite a lot more people than I ever imagined ENJOY seeing others suffer.
I also agree about the tax system. I have had quite a debilitating chronic illness for most of my adult life, so I'm spared a lot of the tax knowledge that others get to deal with intimately. But I feel like the simpler it is - AGAIN - the better it is for most. Most people will understand it, they won't feel cheated, they won't be destroyed when they reach a certain tax threshold, the mega wealthy can't loophole their way out of it. Although it would wipe out an entire tax preparation industry. At the lower end of the income spectrum, those who rely on state or federal benefits have to walk a very scary tightrope. All it takes is reaching an exact dollar amount of income, and benefits disappear. That dollar amount almost never increases enough to come close to covering the cost of the benefits, and yet they lose them nonetheless. So suddenly, they go from surviving poverty to not surviving it, simply because they earned a couple more dollars on their paycheck. This system needs to change, too.
As an aside, can I tell you that after reading your prose, I feel clunky and inarticulate. You have a beautiful way of writing. It takes all kinds, I guess :)
Sara! I'm a fan of your writing as well, thank you. I love all the ways you've grappled with what I'm feeling. Yes, the tax brackets I'm whining about are nothing compared to the severity of losing out on lifesaving financial support just for making a little more than zero money. I'm currently helping my friend navigate the legal system as a newly disabled person and it's shocking that even in LA, which prides itself on liberal politics, it's so excruciatingly dehumanizing to prove you need help. A lot of the relevant services say they can't help him, and that's if they pick up the phone at all. Many are saying "I can't help you unless you get evicted" - which isn't far off, but why wait for someone's life to fully fall apart before stepping in? It's all so counterproductive and cruel. Thanks for reminding me how arbitrary thresholds are even more evil when it comes to supportive social services for people on the brink of losing everything, or trying to crawl back out of a financial hole.
Income inequality is at an all time high. I hope the future of the GOP is death and destruction. They’ve been scamming us since Reagan. Tax the rich their fair share, and then actually fund the IRS enough to enforce it.
This is interesting but I agree with the comments- if the rich paid their small taxes now- we could pay all our bills and recreate the middle class. That’s it- just pay the taxes they owe now. I also believe Democrats are learning that they have to take care of working Americans or they have no chance of being relevant.
Taxes, roll back rates to April 1959 and remove that rider that cuts off Social Security payroll deductions. Taxes makes a nation if the goal is not to pay taxes you can't have a nation or civilization.
Watching politics, particularly right now, often feels like watching professional wrestling. We see dramatic rises and falls, the emergence of heroes ("faces") and villains ("heels"), and an abundance of theatrical showmanship.
The crucial difference, however, lies in the impact. Professional wrestling, now often referred to as "wrestling entertainment," largely doesn't affect most people's daily lives. Politics, on the other hand, is serious and carries real consequences. When we entrust leadership to individuals primarily focused on theatrics and approval ratings, it's hardly a recipe for success.
This is just laughable to me. We already lose hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year because taxpayers, mostly high earners, don’t pay the taxes they owe, in large part because the Republican Party has tried to shrink and strangle the IRS for decades. People whine about deficits while simultaneously wrecking the government agency that brings in the vast majority of government revenue. Who cares if Republicans are even considering a return to slightly higher tax rates for the people at the top when Republicans are determined to cut the IRS workforce in half and take away Biden Admin. funds earmarked for modernization? This effort in itself is estimated to cost us trillions in lost revenue over the next decade, both from the high earners who already weren’t paying or even filing and all of the people who will now join them since there will be even less fear of enforcement from the IRS. This so-called “debate” among Republicans about tax rates on high earners is a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing of practical effect. It’s just a pathetic fig leaf for their plans to gut Medicaid, SNAP and other programs so they can extend Trump’s tax cuts.
Also, letting a tax cut expire is simply not the same thing as proactively raising taxes on the wealthy. I DO think the shifting policy positions between Repubs and Democrats is really fascinating right now, but (I hope) it's going to take a lot more than passive "vibes populism" to really win over the independent/Dem base. I also find the last line from Bannon pretty telling - it's never about doing what's good for Americans; it's all just 'destroy the libs' nonsense. I'm so tired of it.
Right. The wealthy base doesn't care about tax cuts because they can loop hole themselves out of paying taxes every day and twice on Sunday.
Exactly! Even if they say they are going to tax the rich, the rich know how to get out of paying taxes with all the loopholes, so it's just another big lie.
I also don’t want us to forget about the government’s plan to deport millions of immigrants, undocumented or not, whether they’ve committed a crime or not, whether they’re hardworking or not. Undocumented immigrants alone contribute tens of billions of dollars each year to federal, state and local coffers in the form of various taxes. How will all of that be replaced?
Exactly. And all the “waste, fraud, and abuse” they cut were really just government programs that had a very high return on investment. So it will actually cost the government something. All while Republicans in Congress remain complacent…
You are so right. There is a lot of data out there that shows unequivocally that with programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Head Start, etc., each dollar spent returns many times that in benefits to society at large. I wish Sharon would do a post about that sometime.
Economist Kathryn Edwards has a great post about this today: "Over the next ten years Congress could start a universal paid leave program, universal free childcare for all children ages 0 - 5, two free meals at school for every public school student in the US, and establish a minimum income for children through the Child Tax Credit and the total score is $2.8 trillion. You could do all that AND have enough money to pay back Social Security for the size of the tax bill that Republicans are trying to pass—with $100 billion to spare."
https://www.kedits.com/p/nobody-wants-this
That just blows the mind.
Honestly it’s not about the benefits for some.
A lot of people believe there are private or non profits that should take care of those kinds of social programs because
1) they would do so more efficiently.
2) they don’t believe federal
Programs should exist and that’s for the states to do.
Please don’t kill the messenger.
They don’t believe Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid should exist? And I’m confused, non-profits should provide these services or the states should?
Yes. There are people that believe the FEDERAL government does not exist for these programs. If these services were to exist, it would be provided by state programming that’s voted on or best case scenario: voluntaryism or the absence of force.
When Trump says economic pain is like "maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know?" what he should be saying is "maybe billionaires will have 12 mansions instead of 15, and still have more wealth than they could spend in ten lifetimes, you know?" But somehow he was elected twice.
It shouldn’t be about asking children to sacrifice their toys before asking people with obscene wealth to contribute meaningfully to the society that enabled their success in the first place.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole tax situation. Yes, Democrats' base has increasingly been wealthier and more educated compared to Republicans sliding in the opposite direction on both axes. But I think the partisan divide isn't so much about income per se - it's about trust in the government to responsibly use those funds in taxpayers' interest.
How about this for a Rorschach test: Some people fall for outlandish unproven accusations from Elon Musk and his DOGE about fraud and waste because the claims fit their bias, while others see DOGE as simply a conservative power grab because Musk can't and won't show receipts for his work. The deficit isn't just about spending, which is very difficult to change, but about revenue, which is just a matter of getting the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share. DOGE has gutted the government’s ability to seek revenue specifically from the wealthiest Americans. This has driven Progressive Democrats crazy, that working class people have seemingly shrugged about a tax revenue structure that benefits them. That's Bernie's entire thing.
As many people have said whenever the topic of DOGE comes up, but it’s worth repeating: fraud and waste exist. We all want to minimize it as much as possible. But not at the expense of honest people who rely on the government services they pay for.
I want to give working class Trump voters the benefit of the doubt, I really do. But it makes you wonder - if they sign up for peanuts from Trump while he gives out meaningful benefits to the ultra wealthy, meanwhile Bernie's singleminded focus on helping the working class didn't resonate..is it just because of social issues? Does that suggest that denying rights for people who are perceived as "other" has more political power than putting more money in your own bank account?
I just want people to be sane about this. The system is so broken. People who can't afford more should get a tax break. People who can afford more should get a tax increase.
Regardless of political background, we should all support: progressive taxation based on ability to pay; closing tax loopholes that only benefit the ultra-wealthy; protecting and strengthening social safety nets; ensuring corporations pay their fair share; and prioritizing economic policies that benefit the majority rather than just the top 1%. If we could all agree on these basic principles, maybe we could start rebuilding a functional government that works for everyone, not just those with enough money to buy influence.
Tangent: here's my personal story about income tax this year. Let's discuss the concept of tax brackets. I understand how progressive taxation works - only the additional dollars earned above each threshold get taxed at the higher rate, not your entire income. But even with this understanding, these arbitrary thresholds still create strange incentives and outcomes. What's wrong with a smooth graph that gradually increases the percentage without these stark dividing lines?
Historically, the U.S. adopted the bracketed system in 1913 with the 16th Amendment, starting with just seven brackets. Over time, the number of brackets has fluctuated dramatically - from a high of 56 brackets in 1918 to as few as two in the late 1980s. The original rationale was simplicity in calculation before computers, but many economists have advocated for a continuous tax function that would eliminate these arbitrary thresholds. Countries like Germany already use formulas rather than strict brackets to calculate income tax, which creates a smoother progression.
I have worked for the same project for 12 years, but that project has changed corporate ownership 3 times, meaning I have had 4 different employers (and 8 different work emails!), ranging from scrappy to now super corporate. Becoming more corporate had trade offs for the first 3 employers: added benefits but also restrictions on things like raises. But this last acquisition that came in August 2024 recategorized my role in a complicated way - I'm still technically a full-time employee, but I'm now excluded from all the benefits that people in other roles at the company enjoy, only because the technicality that my year-round full-time position is specific to a project. Nothing about my job requirement changed, but my benefits were converted to cash, meaning I got a pay raise that compensated me for the market value of the benefits I would no longer have.
Several meetings with HR later, when I made my case that this was effectively a pay cut because my additional income pushed me into a higher tax bracket and took away the tax advantages of the benefits I lost, I was told there was no negotiation, I could take the offer or resign. Being that everyone else I know in the entertainment industry has faced horrible options finding work for the past 2 years, my options were to go along with it or be unemployed for many months at least. Sure enough, even though this new arrangement was only for August through December out of the year, I was able to calculate that instead of what most people would expect would be standing still (a modest 3ish percent raise to keep up with cost of living) I was handed an 11% pay cut in terms of what actually stays in my bank account. That's because not only do I report more money as income than when that income came in the form of benefits, but that additional income gets taxed at a significantly higher rate than my base salary was.
Even despite this personal pain, I realize that I am fortunate and healthy enough that I should be contributing more, while folks with mouths to feed and debts that weren't their fault are hurting. I think we all need to look beyond our immediate self-interest to what builds a better society for everyone. Let’s not forget there are selfish reasons to want the best for everyone, too. But that would require a lot of change in the way we raise our children to think about government and taxes.
I completely agree with your last statement regarding looking beyond our immediate self interest to what bulids a better society for everyone. I live in an area where we have have people who are barely getting by all the way to multiple billionaires. I see the gluttony and selfishness of the billlionaires and it has led me to believe that too much money is the root of all evil. No one "needs" a billiion dollars. If people were less selfish, our society woulde be better off as a whole. Think of all that could be accomplished if more billionaires were like Mackenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos' ex wife who donates billions to nonprofits). We could help solve homelesness, crime, world hunger, cure diseases, etc. The entire world would be a better place for everyone. Unfortunately, most of these people do not think past their own personal self interests. They act like they are better than everyone just because they have wealth. Other countries may have higher taxes but people do not go bankrupt over health care expenses. How do we get people to understand that helping others helps us all and makes for a better world? Or are people just too selfish and evil to care?
Thanks Sarah, yeah it’s crazy to think that so many societal problems could be cured if hoarded wealth was redirected. MacKenzie Scott is a standout example of what that kind of wealth could accomplish when used for good.
I think where we keep falling into a trap though is relying on people to act altruistically. It shouldn't depend on the moral character of those who become billionaires, especially since that group tends to only reach that status by prioritizing their own self-interest in the first place. The system that creates billionaires often rewards ruthless business practices and tax avoidance, not generosity.
What we really need is a system that helps average voters understand the complex issues on their ballots, with people like them helping explain what's actually in their interest. When people enter the voting booth, they shouldn't be relying on the last political ad they saw or misinformed tweet they read. Imagine if instead, a trusted peer handed them a well-researched "cheat sheet" saying, "Here are the options that will actually benefit people in our situation, and here's the work I did to verify this."
We can't count on billionaires having a moral awakening - we need to build systems that don't require their generosity in the first place. Healthcare shouldn't depend on philanthropy when taxation and proper social programs could solve these problems systematically.
Timothy -- You hit the nail on the head with so many points here. As always--keep pushing the message.
I would actually blame, in large part, the rise of institutional evangelism over the past several decades for much of the tax and wealth debate. While many of the super (grossly) wealthy in our nation are themselves non-religious...they do like the message espoused and promoted by evangelical leaders/pastors: "God determines who among us will best manage wealth, then endows those individuals." This, of course is a manufactured message, with absolutely no biblical basis. But, the mostly undereducated masses who see their religious leaders as infallible (since they're speaking 'for' God)--eat this sh** up. Why? Because taxes and government and politics and money are confusing. So, the simple answer is...it's God's will.
This, in my opinion, is why we see less-advantaged people (en masse??) voting against their own financial self-interest.
I know you've said a LOT of great things in there.
Two of the things really stand out to me: it amazes me how a lot of people don't realize that they can be selfish but also use that self-service for the good of all society. Like - I want a cleaner, healthier, safer, more fair place for everyone, and one of the big reasons is - I want to experience those things for myself and my loved ones. What's good for the whole IS good for me. Or can be. I think the faster we manage to transition into a mindset that what's best for others is quite often great for us, too, the better off we'll be. I've never understood how even those who genuinely don't have a lot of empathy for others can't see this. Even the extremely selfish (and extremely wealthy) can be both self-serving and create a healthy environment for others while reaping the benefits of that. But their sickness is that they only want total power, control and wealth, so there's nothing to be done for that mindset. I also have to remember that quite a lot more people than I ever imagined ENJOY seeing others suffer.
I also agree about the tax system. I have had quite a debilitating chronic illness for most of my adult life, so I'm spared a lot of the tax knowledge that others get to deal with intimately. But I feel like the simpler it is - AGAIN - the better it is for most. Most people will understand it, they won't feel cheated, they won't be destroyed when they reach a certain tax threshold, the mega wealthy can't loophole their way out of it. Although it would wipe out an entire tax preparation industry. At the lower end of the income spectrum, those who rely on state or federal benefits have to walk a very scary tightrope. All it takes is reaching an exact dollar amount of income, and benefits disappear. That dollar amount almost never increases enough to come close to covering the cost of the benefits, and yet they lose them nonetheless. So suddenly, they go from surviving poverty to not surviving it, simply because they earned a couple more dollars on their paycheck. This system needs to change, too.
As an aside, can I tell you that after reading your prose, I feel clunky and inarticulate. You have a beautiful way of writing. It takes all kinds, I guess :)
Sara! I'm a fan of your writing as well, thank you. I love all the ways you've grappled with what I'm feeling. Yes, the tax brackets I'm whining about are nothing compared to the severity of losing out on lifesaving financial support just for making a little more than zero money. I'm currently helping my friend navigate the legal system as a newly disabled person and it's shocking that even in LA, which prides itself on liberal politics, it's so excruciatingly dehumanizing to prove you need help. A lot of the relevant services say they can't help him, and that's if they pick up the phone at all. Many are saying "I can't help you unless you get evicted" - which isn't far off, but why wait for someone's life to fully fall apart before stepping in? It's all so counterproductive and cruel. Thanks for reminding me how arbitrary thresholds are even more evil when it comes to supportive social services for people on the brink of losing everything, or trying to crawl back out of a financial hole.
Income inequality is at an all time high. I hope the future of the GOP is death and destruction. They’ve been scamming us since Reagan. Tax the rich their fair share, and then actually fund the IRS enough to enforce it.
This is interesting but I agree with the comments- if the rich paid their small taxes now- we could pay all our bills and recreate the middle class. That’s it- just pay the taxes they owe now. I also believe Democrats are learning that they have to take care of working Americans or they have no chance of being relevant.
Taxes, roll back rates to April 1959 and remove that rider that cuts off Social Security payroll deductions. Taxes makes a nation if the goal is not to pay taxes you can't have a nation or civilization.
Watching politics, particularly right now, often feels like watching professional wrestling. We see dramatic rises and falls, the emergence of heroes ("faces") and villains ("heels"), and an abundance of theatrical showmanship.
The crucial difference, however, lies in the impact. Professional wrestling, now often referred to as "wrestling entertainment," largely doesn't affect most people's daily lives. Politics, on the other hand, is serious and carries real consequences. When we entrust leadership to individuals primarily focused on theatrics and approval ratings, it's hardly a recipe for success.