“Almost nobody says we should have the richest pay the least. And yet when we look around the country, the vast majority of states have tax systems that do just that.”

Nearly every state and local tax system in the U.S. is fueling the nation’s inequality crisis by forcing lower- and middle-class families to contribute a larger share of their incomes than their rich counterparts, according to a new study published Tuesday.

Titled Who Pays?, the analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) examines in detail the tax systems of all 50 U.S. states, including the rates paid by different income segments.

In 41 states, ITEP found, the richest 1% are taxed at a lower rate than any other income group. Forty-six states tax the top 1% at a lower rate than middle-income families.

Report: https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    In Washington, home of the Microsoft Millionaire every-fucking-where, oddly enough has no state income tax.

    But oddly enough it has a huge problem with unhoused people.

    • tonyn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      Out of curiosity, when did “the homeless” become “unhoused people”? I’m just beginning to notice this shift in language. Has the word homeless become derogatory?

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The word home has a lot of subtext attached to it, a lot of it relating to feelings of belonging, so I think the idea is to make a phrase that doesn’t have a little bit of subtext implying they don’t belong anywhere. Houseless would accomplish a similar thing but unhoused seems to be the result of that line of thought.

        • tonyn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          10 months ago

          Thanks, that makes sense. I’m often suspicious of new euphemisms that make people feel like a problem is less of a problem than it really is. I’m all for more accurate language.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Anytime, I feel like it’s probably one of those things that’s going to be most noticed by the people who are called unhoused instead, though I’m certain not everyone will like it the same amount or even at all.

    • pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      So does California and many other states with state income tax? Is there evidence of a correlation between state income tax and unhoused people?

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        No there isn’t, it’s just idiots who think more taxes will magically fix everything…they think new taxes won’t have the rich not paying it. When in reality, new taxes will just have the same people who pay now, paying more. The rich aren’t going to start paying the new taxes anyways.

    • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m pretty sure that there is no correlation between zero income tax and massive unhouse population and social issues. /s