this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
320 points (98.5% liked)

You Should Know

33426 readers
1383 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Don't give the super wealthy any ideas.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

but what about -~- LOOPHOLE WHACKAMOLE -~- its not technically free for billionaires since they have to pay so much to lawyers

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago

Negative Income tax could operate like UBI. The hero of neoliberalism Milton Freedman supported a scheme to transfer wealth like this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

What are the upside of that vs plain minimum wage?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It reduces the onus on businesses and places it on the government (and this indirectly, taxpayers).

Better for small businesses to hire and thrive.

"But I don't want my taxes to go up!"

Maybe you just need more tax brackets. Where I live, for some reason, a specialized doctor making $250,000/yr is in the same tax bracket as some C-suit making $900,000.

I definitely need more tax brackets where I live.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Never understood the idea of tax brackets. Why isn't it just continuous? Computers are calculating the tax now anyway, not like it would be infeasible.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

I mean to a degree it is continuous. To simplify things the first $10 you make isn't taxed. $11 to $15 is taxed at rate A, $16 to $20 is taxed at rate B, etc. This is what is meant by the progressive tax system. Obviously these numbers are much higher in reality.

People who can't understand this are the ones bragging that they turned down a raise because it would "change their tax bracket". With one exception at very low income, called the benefits cliff, the more money you are paid the more money you take home after taxes.

Does this make tax brackets less confusing? I want to help you and anyone else reading to understand.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like a nightmare to try to explain to someone. Technically it should work, but practically it might be difficult.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Why? To me it'd be much more intuitive. I find brackets quite confusing

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

How would an infinitely adjusting tax percentage be intuitive? Brackets are simple. You pay x% on your income in some bracket and y% on your income in a different bracket. You only need simple multiplication and addition to figure out what you would owe.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Brackets are lobbied for. You cant lobby a straight line.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Please edit the title of your You Should Know post to begin with "YSK". It's Rule 1 of the community. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What a bad set of graphs! The first one is just wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Good thing it's a wiki!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The tax is never negative. Instead, it plots a progressive tax rate, and calls it "negative".

The second graph is just confusing and detracts from the explanation instead of adding to it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That graph plots gross pay (x-axis) against take-home cash (y-axis). The far left of the graph (in green) shows people making under 20k taking home more than their "earned" pay. At the extreme bottom is somebody making 1,000/year taking home 10,000. The progressive income tax starts at 20,000.

Not labeling the axises does make it hard to read.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, that's right. Yes, the graph is only bad and not wrong.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago

The US doesn't technically have a negative tax, but the EITC accomplishes the same basic thing. Whether it's efficient enough, or needs expansion is another story.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›