There was a lot of anger when child benefits in the UK was reduced from all parents, to all parents earning under X amout per year, because it meant that the middle class basically funded a benefits system that they got absolutely zero benefit from.
Your 13% or 15% tax proposals are worth nothing since they are not realistic. It's just populist bull****.
A rich man who has it's 2 consultants on investments profits much more than a poor man who has trouble to pay his healthcare bills. And both should pay 13%.
Right now, the bottom 50th percentile pays little or no income tax in America. Of course they are willing to demand every new government program under the sun because they are not paying for them. So one of the advantages of a flat tax is that everybody has 'skin in the game'. Taxes are raised on all, not just the wealthy, so people think twice before demanding more government spending from their elected representatives.
Apparently thats an over simplified statement, with some google-fu it turns out that:
That said, why don't 49 percent of Americans owe any federal income tax on April 15th? There are two main reasons: income level and tax benefits. The tax system in the United States is designed to be progressive, meaning that higher incomes are asked to pay a larger percentage in taxes. If your income level is relatively low, standard deductions and exemptions can quickly lower your tax burden to zero. According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zeroi just dont understand why the poor and elderly people just dont get engineering jobs or finance jobs like my friends and i? *sarcasmSo who are the 49 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes? The vast majority are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families with children.
But overall the taxes are not the problem in the US. It's low on international level.
The bottom line is that most of the lower 50 percentile of wage earners are *not* in poverty. They pay little or no taxes because of tax deductions and credits.
Your last statement is, like you called (somebody else's -- not mine) the 13% tax proposal, populist bullsh*t. "Oh, they don't have the means to pay anything -- take their share from the rich." Define "rich." Quantify it. My parents, who make ~$240,000/year, but also have two children with significant ongoing medical costs, support my grandparents financially (mortgage, various expenses), a significant amount of student loan debt (~$150,000), as well as their own expenses -- are they rich?
Let's say you have 4 kids and 50k a year. How would you rate their quality of life? Or 50k without kids. Big difference.
But it's an interesting point. What is rich. Your parents have a very special burden with your grandparents. They work the same as other poeple who made 240.000 but have less out of it.
Wouldn't it be let's say fairer to tax the amount after you paid healthcare, education or care for grandparents? These are factors that shouldn't be a "burden"
Healthcare costs or care for older people are unpredictable, education is the basis for a successful nation.
Why should a hipster without kids and grandparents with 250k a year don't pay more taxes?
But your premise is still invalid. Wages are higher in areas with a high cost of living, like the Bay Area or the northeast. Yet with a 'progressive' tax rate, the family with four kids struggling to get by in NYC on $90k is going to get taxed like they are 'rich', while the family with two kids making $50k in Memphis is going to be taxed at a much lower rate, though they are doing far better.
There are so many variables that trying to account for the inequities is just not possible. There is income, how good your benefits are, geography, how many kids you have, whether your kids plan to go to college or not, and many, many more factors. This is another reason that a simple flat rate is best.