Trying to keep this away from being political, even if it would be very easy to make it so, these are the tax ideas being pushed by Biden:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
So much for trying to keep this from being political.
It seems like we should be able to talk of the merits or negatives of a proposal without getting up in arms over which person or political party is pushing it. Plundering a group, or a group feeling it is being plundered, is definitely a problem.
It's a tough topic, especially when mixed with capitalism with the general idea of there being ways for people to be financially successful if they put a lot of time and effort into it. But with so many of our taxes being use based (bridge toll, property tax, sales tax) or flat taxes (social security, up to the limit that you accumulate benefits), a progressive system with ever increasing rates seems to push more for an "us vs them" mindset.
And it is a slippery slope with undefined groups. It's easy to look at those with the very most and say that they could pay a bit more, without changing their general financial position. (though there are some that do want to use taxes actually to change the financial position of the upper end) But it's also different to look at the lowest section that really is struggling to put food on the table and pay rent on housing within a reasonable distance of work, vs to add in others in about the lower 50% (who don''t pay any federal income tax) that just aren't doing as well as they think they should. In all areas it is easy to look at other situations and be judgy that "those people" should be paying more.
And then there is some section of the population that is making a good portion of their income in cash, and not reporting it. Because of this they are paying much less than someone else making the same net amount. We see this happening in a lot of the construction trades (some people/companies, but mainly smaller jobs), but it's also the known institution behind tips. And often most people support or even help with this tax avoidance.
I'm reading "The triumph of injustice", that book that I am pretty sure I am not going to agree with in total, since it sounds like they want to plunder the top end to help rebalance accumulated wealth, and used lies with statistics to push their point. They added both halves of social security payroll taxes as part of the overall tax people pay, whereas with SS it's more of a required progressive pension plan, where the people that put in the least get the highest return on their input, but that all that put in something should on average get back more than they put in. Using both halves of SS plus medicare, they pushed the total tax rate from ~10-12% up to 25%, to give headlines that the top few in the country are paying less than the lower group. I'd rather they were straightforward about it, specifying that while the total tax rate of the lower 50% is only 12% compared to the top billionaires rate of 22%, when you add in social security the total deductions from net pay are higher for the lower 50% than the top billionaires, making it much harder to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.
And maybe that's the problem they saw, that they got to the same "the current system doesn't leave much to spend on a monthly basis" by considering it a tax, while keeping the explanation much simpler. There's still the problem of deciding the employer side of SS should be considered part of the tax that the employee is paying, which is another 6.3% of that. I'm not convinced that the employer would raise wages by 6.3% if they suddenly stopped having to pay their halve of SS, nor that the employee would demand a raise of that much in that case. Instead this should be part of the business taxes, which it says mostly get passed down to shareholders.
Regardless of their weaselly ways, and wishing they were more straightforward with it since they could still get to the same point that in total the bottom group (say 20%) is still having to pay a lot in taxes even if they aren't paying much in federal taxes, and that is hindering not just them but the growth of the country, the history they have given has pointed out some interesting things while reaffirming the path that would be needed.
I'm only about 3 chapters in. But it pointed out the huge shifts that have happened with taxes, and how they were pushed. The "easiest" has been with wars. While a terrible thing, it was an easy way to pull together everyone, making it patriotic to help the country. FDR brought people together too, but in this case mostly to get out of the Great Depression, making it patriotic to pay to help. But he also focused on putatively taxing excessive wages, asking for a 100% tax but "only" getting a 94% tax. The result was a high wage limit, and it says most people followed this, though eventually some workarounds got more traction, such as lower capital gains rates.
Much later, Reagan jumped in and united the push, lowering the rates while getting buy in from nearly all politicians (including several recent presidents including the current one)
It put that the basic path in tax change has been that the system has gotten more and more complex, and some avoiding it, that it then changes.
Put all together, what do we get?
It seems like there are certain times where it takes getting everyone together for a common goal, because it is going to take everyone. It can just be forced on everyone, but it is a much easier lift if instead you get everyone interested in a shared solution, likely through patriotism or nationalism. We want to win! We want an even better place for our children! We want the country to be even stronger in 100 years than it is now!
Get people fired up and excited, but working together for a solution instead of against each other (different groups).
There are also "problems" here in the US that could be used as targets to overcome while uniting us, but a problem would be labeling too many things at once. Health insurance and medical care is a big one for me that could be taken on, a reason to raise taxes while simplifying and lowering the net cost, though still allowing privatization of certain parts of it. Social security/retirement could be tackled while raising rates but also benefits, bringing in that everyone has to pay in to the system aiding that by lowering the self-employment portion, trying to get more of those "under the table cash payments" to be above board. Insurance of other types, while pushing good practices that we can help with (driving better, doing things in our yard that prevents risk of insurance claim). Improving education options (higher pay for experienced teachers, while requiring training and removing tenure. Lowering public upper education costs while offering other options (offering inexpensive base classes online) while giving more grants or lower interest loans for degrees that are most needed in the US, while encouraging students to look at future job needs). And how about improved finance seminars or courses in high school, to help give more financial knowledge before kids head out into life.
There are all sorts of things that would cost something upfront, and would make the US better, but likely even have a net lower cost. Some of this would make government bigger, but some of it balances out with currently bloated overpriced systems (hello healthcare).
This is just back of the envelope brainstorming, but if you put some of that together, and show how it can help make things better for most people in the US and make the US more competitive into the future, it's an easy win. Combining that with a big simplification in the IRS rules (also a win), tax changes or even increases could be made. And they could bring the country together, if not completely punitive or plundering.
There have been some times in recent memory that would have been easy times to push a patriotic duty while making some sizable changes that would improve things for the country. This isn't rocket science. Many leadership principles across a variety disciplines have bringing people together to overcome a common goal.
I don't know exactly what tax changes would be fair. But I do know that applying big increases to any one group is not going to be seen as fair by them, even if it could be pushed through. With the long term strategy, looking a generation or 100 years out, further dividing and isolating is not the way, even if it is cash that is easy to grab.
But I see enough easily agreed problem spots that could be improved to pull everyone together, while at the same time doing a full simplification. It wouldn't be easy. And there would still be lots of issues across political or economic lines, such as how to distribute these taxes. But I think it could not only be a good thing, but also help unite the country and push it to have an even brighter future.
Is it possible to not make this political? It seems most of our "making it political" is being for or against one side in a 2 party system. I think either party could push this, and it would take some compromise from either from their core principles. And if done right it would make for a landslide, while still being partially formed and sided to whichever side pushed it, because we are suckers with how we think of the past and future, while downgrading the present. It's that whole capitalism thing, that we have the power to improve our future.
(EDIT: I hope this isn't really seen as political, even if talking about an issue that can be political. While I think what I tried to write as an unsided view is ok, I realize that it is easy to have a blind spot or a different level to what one considers political or not. Maybe I did ok, or maybe I didn't. But as far as I know neither side suggesting big across the board changes anywhere close to this, even if it seems to me that this is what is needed)