Because the sum total is greater, yes. But you should pay the same percentage on income in that bracket, should you earn it.
Ok, if I understand you correctly, since I have licenses 2 inches thick, ponied up the money to start my business, took all the risk of opening a business, plus I work my ass off for someone else's company, work between 500-800 hours of overtime a year for the past 15 years, my reward isn't to be more successful, to have nice things, to send my kids to the best school I can afford, my reward is to pay a higher percentage of taxes so someone can sit at home and fan their [ock cay] and balls or vagina? Seems fair
My only beef with the progressive tax system, is that my labor is less valuable the more I work. Every time I move into the next income bracket I take a pay cut, seems stupid. Why can't the first $30K be un-taxed (assuming living wage nonsense) and the rest is flat tax (wages, bonuses, capital gains, etc).
No. Same in taxes for that bracket, and your reward is whatever you earn after taxes, same as everyone else.
It utterly ignored what I said and just repeated the same argument that ignores the equality of the brackets, so I am gonna disagree.
Because the lowest earners will be paying a disproportionately meaningful amount of their earnings. Lowest earners end up spending all their income to meet the standard of living, high earners do not. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, I know the popular opinion is a flat tax and cut all spending to nothing, then complain about government not working and to move into a land of corporate fiefdoms.
In the example I gave, everyone's first 15k or whatever is taxed the same. And the next interval is taxed the same at whatever rate for it, and so on.
So tell me why a married person's 19,051st dollar earned should be taxed 2% higher than the 19,050th dollar they earned and why their 77,401st dollar taxed at 12% more than their 19,050th.
I quit working as much this year, I try to get out of as much overtime as possible because of last year's tax situation
That's the whole point for the untaxed amount. I think government should provide the services that people demand, if the people demand a service they better damn well pay for it. The problem with our current structure is this fabrication about fair share nonsense and wanting someone else (i.e. rich) to foot the bill for everything. A flat tax in my view is much more fair. I'd like your thoughts as to why the government deserves more of my money and I deserve less the more I work.
Do you know that people that make more money have bills too? I won't use real numbers, but my company, I paid a couple of hundred for my license, Miami-Dade charges me a couple of hundred to own a business, I have insurance on my work truck, I have insurance for my business, I don't have workmen's comp because it's just me, the state of Florida says I have to have a minimum amount in my company bank account that costs more than a regular bank account. I had to pay the consultant lady to petition the board of electrical professionals for them to approve me, even thought I met all the criteria, passed quite possibly the hardest construction standards test in the United States. This stuff costs a ton of money, why do you think someone else is more entitled to it than me? Because you think their first 15K is harder to make than mine?
Wait, you own a business? I thought you were an employee. F that, tax you at 90% you evil greedy corporate scrooge.
It doesn't look like you are really interested in my thoughts, judging by the way you framed the question as an accusation.
The exact boundaries are arbitrary. I would think setting them as relating to cost of living would make sense.
