|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway2037
474 days ago
|
|
That is impressive. Thanks for the very thoughtful answer. Many times before, I have seen utterly bullshit tax minimisation claims on HN, but rarely an answer as good as this one! Deeper question: Now that you provided a reasonably scenario where a household earning 300K USD combined income can "only" pay 12+% in federal taxes: Does this make sense from a policy perspective? My point: Should it be higher? It seems hard to pay for what a highly developed nation needs to pay for where 300K USD households are paying such measly federal taxes. (To be clear: I very well understand this is one component of total tax burden, but still a worthy discussion.) |
|
Especially when comparing to effective tax rates in countries with universal healthcare and different defined benefit pension schemes. For example, health insurance premiums in the US are a tax, due to the myriad restrictions on how premiums can be priced. Just not collected by the government, but it definitely is young and healthy subsidizing poor and sick.
Also, note that most of the reduction in tax liability is due to setting money aside for later use, so it is akin to deferring taxes, rather than just reducing taxes.
Another way to make sense of policy is that the federal US spend is 60% on defined benefit pensions for old people and healthcare for old or poor people, 17% on military, 13% on interest, and the remaining 10% for the rest of the federal government’s operations.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...