• PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Here’s the basic idea of what I’d think is fair

    You have a basic rate for income below the 20th percentile of all incomes

    Multiply that by 1.5 for income between that and the 40th percentile

    Multiply that by 1.25 for income between that and the 60th percentile

    Multiply that by 1.125 for income between that and the 80th percentile

    Multiply that by 1.0625 for income between that and the 95th percentile

    Multiply that by 1.03125 for income between that and the 99th percentile

    Multiply that by 1.015625 for all income above the 99th percentile, with the additional caveat that people who top this bracket even once cannot hold public office, donate to political campaigns, or hire lobbyists and lobbying firms for ten years following them topping out.

    Imagine something similar for taxes on units of housing owned, dividends earned, and so on and so forth.

    The idea being that the highest rate can’t be adjusted without significantly reducing the tax burden of the poorest, basically erasing the only way conservatives have been able to balance the books whenever they try that shit.

      • pound_heap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not more complicated than current US income tax system. Maybe a few more tax brackets…

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think I also made it a bit more flexible to, by only making one number changeable and fixing the brackets to percentiles, the system functions more or less independently year to year, with the single dial being all that can be turned when revenue needs to be raised from across society or when a break can be handed out due to a miraculous surplus or occasion for national reward.