• alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Honestly, I really don’t understand why a populist left party doesn’t pursue this.

      No tax on income below $100K and no tax on wealth, property and inheritance below $1M.

      Or choose some other figures.

      It seems like it would be a slam dunk to get voter support.

      • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        There are several very similar issues that are all slam dunks, and the fact that they aren’t pursued by the Democrat party is proof that they are part of the same capitalist gang as the GOP. There is no voter that would be against banning lobbyist bribery from corporations, but that is never a campaign point. The few progressive voices that we have still insist that they have to work from within the Democrat party and there is simply no way that they will ever gain any foothold that way. I insist that right now, when the Democrat party is the most powerless, is the time for progressives to break off into their own party while they are seated in Congress. The Democrat Party can join or die.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        No tax on income below $100K and no tax on wealth, property and inheritance below $1M.

        With UBI, it is possible to have a flat tax where corporate and lowest personal tax rates are the same. Without payroll taxes. That means that employment can be tax free as long as business doesn’t get a tax deduction, though they still can if they lose money in a year.

        There can be surtaxes on incomes above $100k, but they would appear to be very small, when personal income taxes are hidden this way.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          As much as I am convinced we will need UBI in our automated future, statements like yours are way too optimistic on the financials.

          Let’s see if we can get healthcare, education, school meals, food stamps and social security funded first.

          After that we can start funding generous unemployment benefits to handle the first waves of unemployment due to automation.

          And as the automation keeps gobbling up jobs, we can fund schemes for reschooling, early retirement, increase paid parental leave, increase paid vacation, promote part time work (e.g. working 4 days for 100% pay).

          Once the totality of all these schemes costs the same as UBI, we can simplify it all be replacing the schemes with UBI.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            was commenting on possible tax reforms.

            I strongly prefer UBI to conditional programs that have overhead. I get that politics needs to keep us miserable and promise conditional bandaids to a constituency to maximize their power, and the crab mentality that something is promised “just for them” as politics as its always been, but that doesn’t seem to be winning, and oligarchist policies are much better funded and mediasplained.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s been my thoughts as well.

        Eliminate income tax on anyone making less than, say 500,000 per year. Then aggressively tax wealth and those making more.

        Is this a MASSIVE shake up? Absolutely! Would it likely be a bit messy? Definitely!

        But we are at a point where such fundamental change is necessary