I just want to say implementing a mathematical function is far more convenient then using brackets. That way you can make sure anybody who gets a raise also gets to keep more, but pays more taxes at the same time. Because you will never jump a bracket which reduces your income because of higher taxes. The other benefit is, that you can easily implement a negative income tax. This would make sure that anybody who is working, has more income than people who don’t work. This would be an incentive for anybody to work what they can, even if it is very little.
Thats not how the tax brackets work. Only the amount that is in that bracket is taxed at that rate. What can happen is a loss of income based social services and tax breaks for lower income families.
You are obviously right. I always mix this up (see Bracket creep why I mix this up). But otherwise my point still stands. In this stackexchange is a graph with an example how tax brackets turn out at each income. My actual point ist, that the graph is not smooth and I don’t like that. Also there is a highest bracket, which will allows the super rich to keem growing their wealth. The fact, that super rich people are hiding their actual wealth for example via credits, is a separate issue, which obviously can’t be tackled by income tax alone.
Because you will never jump a bracket which reduces your income because of higher taxes.
Dude, what are you even talking about?? The entire purpose for brackets to even exist is to make it literally impossible for this to happen. Maybe take the time to learn how the tax system works before attempting to improve it?!?
Technically the bracket system fits the definition of a mathematical function but taking your intent, I think a single function is actually less flexible, by introducing brackets you can specifically raise or lower the tax burden on demographics that have been shown, at least in America, to form meaningful statistical cohorts.
Plus the wealth percent based rate creates a direct negative impact to wealth accumulation, meaning that rich folks will likely be trying to offload wealth to keep their rates down, meaning that wealth can go back into the moving economy, meaning into the hands of the people it has been horded from through wage theft and price gouging.
I just want to say implementing a mathematical function is far more convenient then using brackets. That way you can make sure anybody who gets a raise also gets to keep more, but pays more taxes at the same time. Because you will never jump a bracket which reduces your income because of higher taxes. The other benefit is, that you can easily implement a negative income tax. This would make sure that anybody who is working, has more income than people who don’t work. This would be an incentive for anybody to work what they can, even if it is very little.
Thats not how the tax brackets work. Only the amount that is in that bracket is taxed at that rate. What can happen is a loss of income based social services and tax breaks for lower income families.
You are obviously right. I always mix this up (see Bracket creep why I mix this up). But otherwise my point still stands. In this stackexchange is a graph with an example how tax brackets turn out at each income. My actual point ist, that the graph is not smooth and I don’t like that. Also there is a highest bracket, which will allows the super rich to keem growing their wealth. The fact, that super rich people are hiding their actual wealth for example via credits, is a separate issue, which obviously can’t be tackled by income tax alone.
Fair yeah, the system needs reform
Dude, what are you even talking about?? The entire purpose for brackets to even exist is to make it literally impossible for this to happen. Maybe take the time to learn how the tax system works before attempting to improve it?!?
Technically the bracket system fits the definition of a mathematical function but taking your intent, I think a single function is actually less flexible, by introducing brackets you can specifically raise or lower the tax burden on demographics that have been shown, at least in America, to form meaningful statistical cohorts.
Plus the wealth percent based rate creates a direct negative impact to wealth accumulation, meaning that rich folks will likely be trying to offload wealth to keep their rates down, meaning that wealth can go back into the moving economy, meaning into the hands of the people it has been horded from through wage theft and price gouging.