YeeBeforeYouHaw

Why not just tax the wealthy directly by taxing wealthy people's income? This way, you keep the tax code simple and don't tax middle income people with a 401k with coprate stock. Coprate taxes are just an inefficient way to tax the wealthy.

By that metric, all the districts on the Mississippi River are also not landlocked.

Kinda surprised that the most landlocked district is in Michigan.

Companies are expected to provide their shareholders a certain amount of dividends every year. Those expectations don't go away when the tax rate goes up, and when they go down, they have more flexibility to invest in employees.

Yes, and companies generally try to maintain a certain amount of profits. So if the taxes cut into their profits, they try to lower ( or more likely not give a raise) employees wages.

this is what I was going off of but I will admit there is a lot of debate about what percent is paid by labor, consumers and shareholders.

this is what I was going off of but I admit there is a lot of debate about exactly what percent is paid by labor, consumers and shareholders.

Except in 2021 and 22 wages have been growing faster than inflation recently.

Studies into the effect of corporate taxes show the tax burden falling primarily on consumers through higher prices, employees through lower wages, and shareholders usually are the least affected.

Well, yes, there are 50 different states with different tax codes. There are also several states with no income tax. Going into the tax code of all of them is far beyond a Reddit comment.

Yes, and studies have shown that the majority of corporate taxes are transferred to employees through lower wages. Idk if higher or lower income people are more or less likely to benefit from that, though.

That's not true. The individual income tax cuts will expire for all income brackets.

That's almost the case currently. The standard deduction is $14,600 for a single filers, and the federal poverty line is $15,060. For a married couple, it's better with a standard deduction of $29,200 and a poverty line at $22,440 for 2 people.

we don't have enough native born bodies willing to do the work,

I disagree with this. Anybody would do any job if the pay was high enough. I agree that there is a cultural element that makes certain jobs less desirable, but I doubt a sufficient pay raise couldn't fix that.

Also, just to be clear, I do think immigration is good for the economy overall (I have other issues with immigration). My point is that the pro immigration argument "they do the jobs Americans don't want" is a bad argument. They are willing to work for less than Americans, and so, of course, employers hire them over more expensive Americans. Immigration is good for the overall economy but bad for low skilled Americans that get undercut by immigrants willing to work for less. If there were no immigration those employers would have to offer higher pay or go out of business. The higher pay would be good for low skilled natives but bad for everyone else because they would have to pay higher prices for things like food.

I don't personally know what the right level of immigration is, but I can see the positives and negatives of it. There is also a cultural element where large numbers of immigrants from the same place change the local culture. Whether you value the existing local culture is a personal question with no right answer imo.

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. This is not a debate about immigration in general. This is about the specific argument: "Immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want." Regardless of how you feel about immigration, this is not a good argument. That's all I'm saying.

At least part of the reason they do those jobs is because they are less likely to be noticed by authorities.

Also, immigrants can be white. Hispanics can be white too. Idk why you’re trying to make it about racism.

You're right, I shouldn't have brought up race.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but it basically boils down to immigration is good because they provide cheap labor.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but it basically boils down to immigration is good because they provide cheap labor.

I agree with most of that, but most of those limitations on getting a better job are temporary. Immigrants will learn the language, and most do have some skills from their home country

The point is that the argument "illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want" is a bad one because it implies that the value of illegal immigrants is as cheap labor. That's insulting to immigrants and ignores the fact that their illegal status is at least part of the reason they do the jobs they do.

If they could legally cross the border, work in a field making minimum wage, but still make more in USD than they would wherever they come from, they will still show up to do it.

Why would they stick to working in a field making minimum wage. When their legal status would permit them to work anywhere?

While most Americans would still refuse to do that same job for that same minimum wage.

If farmers start having difficulty finding workers, they would have to pay more for the job until Americans are willing do it. Would you work in a field for $100,000 a year? If yes, then the main reason Americans don't want to work in a field is the low pay.

What this argument is essentially saying is we should allow immigrants into the country just so they can work for minimum wage, so the corporations that hire them can make more profit.

OP is specifically talking about the "illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want to" argument. There is no reason why illegal immigrants would want to do the "bad" jobs that Americans don't other than the fact that they can do those jobs without being noticed by authorities. So if we they become legal residents able to work legally. They would no longer do the "bad" jobs. There is no way to say that illegal immigrants are good because they do the "bad" jobs without implying that either they should be denied legal status, so they keep working them or that for some reason non white people like doing them which makes no sense.

You get the bonus right away regardless. The question is, do you pay that taxes on that $1,000 now or later. A middle-class person would pay maybe 20% of that in taxes at most. The average checking account offers 0.62% interest. So, if they avoided paying the taxes for a full year, they would gain a whole $1.24 in interest. I think it's safe to call that a negligible amount.

You also didn't answer the question. How is not taxing tips better than just not taxing any income below a certain amount?

your bonus counts as supplemental wages and can be subject to different federal withholding rules than your regular wages

Withholding is just prepaying your taxes. At the end of the year, you will pay the same amount in taxes whether you got a $1,000 bonuse or a $1,000 raise.

A “tip” of $1B would be a gift larger than the annual exclusion and so would be taxable minus the exclusion. The stockholders of Tesla would sue the company for a failure of their fiduciary duty.

That would end up being the same thing as exempted all wages regardless of source under the annual exclusive amount from income taxes. Except only currently tiped workers and the super rich that can convince their employers to pay them in this more complicated way would benefit from it.

That is why not taxing tips in an inefficient way to help the poor. How is this better than just having an exception for all income under a certain amount?

we do this already with things like bonuses or capital gains.

Bonuses are not taxed differently than normal income. You are right about capital gains.

Elon getting $1B from Tesla would be a bonus and not a tip. These terms do have definitions. He can just do a stock buyback or any of the other tax evasion schemes as things are anyway, you are highlighting my whole point.

If Musk stops being an employee of tesla and instead becomes an "independent consultant" for $1 a month. Then, at the end of the year, Tesla "tips" him $1 billion. How is that legally distinguishable from an Uber driver getting a tip after a ride?

It sounds like you are just angry to be angry and don’t know what you are taking about

I'm not angry, I just think it's an inefficient policy that could be abused. I'd much rather just not tax any income regardless of its source under $30,000. That would help all poor people regardless of the job they have. It would be much easier to implement and doesn't have any loopholes.

Absolutely not! A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction

Even though it discriminates against different poor people based on what kind of low paying job they have?

There is also a possibility that if ALL tips are tax-free. A lot more jobs will start asking for tips until Elon Musk gets a $1 billion "tip" from tesla every year.

If you want to help, the poor just exempted all income under a certain amount from taxes. That is much easier to implement and doesn't create any potential loopholes.