Back

@KindlyWizard
Yeah, people just don't realize how the tax system works and think that they're in danger of having to pay a tax rate that they are in no way going to have to pay. It's the same with inheritance taxes: call it a "death tax" and watch the poor vote against their own self interest. Sigh. I'm not even a tax expert.

@tofugolem
I'm right there with you, but if we can't even get people to agree to taxing income in a fairly straightforward and reasonable manner, I suspect that the only way we'll deal with billionaires is through extra-taxational means, which grow more and more attractive the worse things get.

@Lightfighter
This is true, but only because we have a deeply broken tax system. And we still don't tax the wealthy fairly under our broken system. We could correct both those problems and I fear it wouldn't fix the wealth inequality which is driving social unrest, but it would be better than it currently is.

@intransitivelie Yes, absolutely. The whole system is a mess and needs to be reworked from the ground up.

@blotosmetek
I never said explaining marginal rates was easy. That's why flat tax grifters constantly get traction: a flat percentage may be regressive, but at least it's easy to explain. Unfortunately for flat taxers, in order to make flat taxes actually work in the real world, they have to be saddled with so many exceptions and loopholes and extra cruft that they're no less complicated than our current system, and far more complicated than a simple progressive marginal tax rate would be. That's partially down to the realities of the world and partially down to politics: people with power won't support a flat tax which doesn't privilege them to the same or greater extent than the current system.

I think any explanation of a system of taxation starts with transparency and simplification. If you can go to a website, put in any income number you feel like, and get a hypothetical number which is close to what you'd pay given that income and no special circumstances (of which there are currently far too many) you don't need to be a math wizard. Better would be a place where you can compare what you'd pay under several systems, to show that, for instance, a flat tax isn't as desirable to the poor as it might seem.

But all this runs up against two big problems. One, there is no money in simplifying the tax system, and a great deal of money in complicating it and keeping it obscure. Tax preparation companies are firmly opposed to any efforts to make filing taxes simpler under the current system. They're even more opposed to simplifying the system itself, because they make money from the complexity. But that's not taking into consideration the many other rich people and companies who benefit from a complex system which privileges them. This problem is systemic but soluble, and indeed must be solved in the macro because the power of money in politics in general is currently killing the world.

However, number two is much, much harder. You think that people's lack of math education is what's keeping us from changing the tax system, but it's much bigger than that. What's central to the problem is that people who understand the math still don't support taxing the rich because they believe they are, or could become, rich. That's not an issue with math literacy. That's an issue with "the American Dream" or whatever you want to call it (I hesitate to ascribe it purely to Americans because I've heard other countries experience the same thing to greater or lesser degrees). And that's not a problem to solve, that's a failing of the system itself. It's intrinsic to the system. You can't excise it without fundamentally altering the system.

At which point, why worry about taxes? Good question. I'll leave it to my learned colleagues of socialism, anarchism, and communism to debate. For me, the problem can be approached without being finally resolved until we get to the point where solution is more likely. That begins with telling people, persuasively if perhaps reductively, about the benefits of actually taxing the rich. People generally like government programs when they actually experience them and aren't taught not to like them by right-wing propaganda. Economic policy which is actually beneficial to people who aren't rich is widely popular when it's tried. I'm not talking about rabid leftist proposals like Universal Healthcare (a wild idea which is currently practiced by nearly every other country in the world). I'm talking simple stuff that we already do, just funded properly by taxes on the wealthy.

At any rate, you're correct that math literacy is a problem. That's why I generally shy away from presenting people with charts and graphs and equations which, though in the interest of transparency, are opaque to most people. Elsewhere in reply to someone I said that I think we need graduated levels of explanation, from the simplest which would be a box into which you put an income and get a tax bill back, to a basic explanation of how that number was arrived at, possibly with comparisons, to equations, charts, and graphs, and everything in between. As there's no money in doing this, I don't expect it to happen, but it would be nice to stop having to explain marginal tax rates to people who should know better than to stan rich bastards in my mentions, at least. That's not addressed at you at all, that's just my frustration talking. Sorry for the long-windedness of my reply.

@intransitivelie @blotosmetek

Ah yes, they like gov programs, like ACA and medicare. They just hate Obama care. And old people living of their pay check. An educated electorate is a dream without decent schools.

@oldoldcojote @blotosmetek
Which is why we have to give them what they don't know they want without asking them for permission, I guess.