Ganked from metahacker

[ironphoenix]

This graph says it all, really.¹ Republicans are for the rich. It's that simple.

Why do so many poor and middle-class people vote for them?

---

1: Well, not really. It doesn't show the cuts to social programs that the Republican tax plan necessarily implies because of the reduction in net tax revenues, which generally hit low-income folks harder.

Comments

[beable]

See much as I understand why we have a progressive system here, I would have no problem with a flat tax rate. But I would want it coupled with
a) an exemption for the first X dollars which would denote a at least a minimumally livable level (e..g the poverty line) which would not be taxed.
b) no other exemptions or loopholes or clever put-asides or tax shelters
c) a much lower rate since closing all the loopholes should mean that a flat tax wouldn't need to be more than 20%, possibly even lower.

Given that clever people will always find loopholes (oh hai, my money is now in offshore accounts, profits, no that's a loss oh noes my poor company oh woes) I don't think this system would work. But wouldn't it be nice in an idealized world?

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

In general, I agree with simplifying tax rules, but there are always wrinkles, because finances are complicated things.

Minimum livable depends on where you live. Compare housing prices in Ottawa, ON and say, Riverside-Albert, NB.

Overall, instead of a flat tax, I prefer a smooth subsidy-tax curve which crosses a zero-tax, zero-subsidy point somewhere significantly above the bare minimum survival level, in order to provide a positive incentive to low-income people while ensuring that zero-income people can survive.