Skip to main content

Presuming that a progressive tax system makes sense--and I firmly believe that it does--the problem seems to be that it's easily misrepresented and confuses people.

Talk about raising taxes on the rich, and you have the GOP frothing at the mouth, lying to people, suggesting that everyone is going to be taxed at that rate, and acting as if the marginal tax rate applied to everything.

It's relatively complex (which is why the flat taxers can appeal to people--it's "simple" and it's "fair" -- which I don't agree with; it's so simple as to be simplistic, and fair is an assertion that suggests that identical treatment is fair, in a situation where people and their incomes are anything but identical).

So what do we do to make it easier for folks to understand and support?

I think that the primary problem is the way that the progressive system is set up. It allows most people NOT to have any reason to understand tax brackets and marginal rates. So when the professional misrepresentatives on the right spew their crap about taxes and taxation, most people are confused, and may be scared.

I propose that we flip the system on its head. Set the tax rate so that the rich really do pay the same rate on every cent of income--and so that people of lesser means get tax rate breaks.

Everyone loves a break. They understand it.

Now you may think that this is really not going to work, but let me give you an analogous case, so you can see how the psychology of it works out, with real people.

Years ago, my father and his brother -- both aerospace engineers -- invested a major chunk of their retirement savings into real estate, and specifically, into an apartment building. And the headaches of landlordship were revealed. But that's a tangent.

The one that really stuck out (for a reason about to be revealed) was late payment of rent. My father and uncle had to make mortgage payments to the bank, and the bank had a deadline, and if you were late, they got pissy and imposed a penalty. And they didn't like that. And they--like most landlords--imposed the same system on renters; you're late, it's costing me money in late fees I get hit with, and they just passed them on. And renters hated that, too.

Everyone was unhappy. And it didn't seem fair; you're a couple days late, but there's this big markup, and that's just not fair. Right? That's the logic and psychology involved.

At some point, one of them had a brainstorm. They scrapped late fees. At least on paper...

Instead, they just wrote them into the rent; the base rent was set at the rent they expected, plus the late fee. And then they made sure that renters understood that if the rent was in on time, by the deadline--not late at all--they could take an early payment reduction of whatever the old late fee used to be.

No difference, really. It's just the way that things were represented.

But HOW things get said, and done, is often as important as WHAT is done. Human beings are only marginally logical creatures....

The results? They were stunned. Late payment of rents fell, by a lot. And that alone was a good thing. But the real surprise was that their tenants were happier. They were getting a break.... And other problems with the building declined.  Which ended up meaning that costs of running it fell some, and they actually were able to keep the rents down some, because turnover fell. So in the end, everyone really did benefit. But note that everyone was happier, even though the actual math said that nothing was different.

Back to taxes.

I propose that we set a progressive tax rate system that starts at the top and works down. I am NOT proposing actual numbers here, this is just representative, an example, to show how it might work.

Everyone pays the nominal income tax rate of 50%. Call that the national tax rate.

But for income below $500,000, down to $250,001, you get a break--on that income you only pay 40%.

Below $250,000, down to $100,001, you only pay 30% on that income. Another break!

Below $100,000, down to $50,001, you only pay 20% -- again a break!

Below $50,000, down to (poverty level*1.25), you only pay 10%. Again, a break for those who most need it.

Again, the actual brackets (where the incomes start and stop) and the rates are utterly arbitrary here. I'm not looking at the Treasury's income, or where we should tax various groups. I'm suggesting a system that gets talked about as a single national rate, which you pay LESS THAN, if your income is below the top level (and the further down from that level you are, the bigger the break).

The marginal tax brackets end up being essentially the same. But what changes is the psychology of how we talk about and think about taxes and rates. When they start arguing that the rich need a break down to 40% (compared to the example above), because it will "let them create jobs" < cough >, they'll get pushback from people who ask why the very wealthy should get the same break as the merely very well off--and why others don't get a similar break. If the top want a 10 point cut, shouldn't everyone get that, too? (At which point reality can kick in with the math that says that the budget wouldn't work...).

In the future, all that needs to be done would be to index the brackets for inflation, and to tweak the brackets.

Thoughts? Problems?

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site