35

I think taxes should be based on a 5-year rolling average, to ease the burden for people who have high income only once in their life. Winning the lottery or patenting an invention that makes you rich is the American dream. Let's tax high earners but show some lenience for folks who have a once in a lifetime windfall.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Winning the lottery? Honestly we should be trying to find ways to DISCOURAGE people from playing if anything.

An invention that makes you rich? If it is a physical good you will probably not see significant net income for a couple year anyways as you need to establish the supply chain, the distribution chain, the marketing, etc. For intellectual property you could maybe make an argument.

Inheritance? Heck no, it shod.be taxed more heavily. That encourages wealthy people to start giving their wealth to their children BEFORE they die, spreading it out over years. Which means they can spend it a bit sooner.

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 24 points 2 days ago

A rolling 5 year average would mean you'd be taxed overly heavily for years after a windfall.

Given that winning the lotto is often financially disasterous, getting taxed heavily after you've already blown the cash could cripple people at their weakest point. Making the lottery more appealing is also a net loss to society.

It opens another potential avenue for tax avoidance schemes to game.

Getting rich quick almost always requires doing something awful. If it just required hardwork or smarts, plenty people got that. We should absolutely not encourage people to aim for once in a lifetime "get rich quick" payoffs.

[-] dumples@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Doing the median instead of the mean would solve that problem. The post tax wouldn't be as large then

[-] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Lottery winnings in Canada are tax free. Only the earnings from investing it is taxed according to standard laws. It makes a lot of sense because the lottery itself is a form of taxation. The government already got their cut from the tickets purchased by everyone.

In the US you pay the players tax, then you get taxed on the winnings, then you get taxed on income earned from investments.

Meanwhile American billionaires pay next to nothing. What an uncivilized country.

[-] Lumidaub@feddit.org 18 points 2 days ago

Yes, let's complicate taxes even more.

[-] jello@programming.dev 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It shouldn't matter how complicated they are because the government should just bill me.

They should know how much I owe and just tell me

[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They should know how much I owe

Oh, they do. If you get the amount wrong, they'll demonstrate it real quick.

[-] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Precisely.

I already pay an estimated amount every paycheck, tell HR to adjust it.

[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

I for one am looking forward to those people that get lucky once having much higher tax rates for years afterwards, instead of just paying once up front. There's no way that'll have negative consequences and leave people with hard feelings about the whole thing.

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If you have a lower tax rate on a million and a higher tax rate on years where you earn, say $20,000 you keep a lot more than if you have a higher tax rate on the million and lower on the years you earn $20,000

[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

And people with sudden windfalls of cash, like from winning the lottery, are famously good at math and make wonderful financial decisions.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago

Upvote because the opinion is unpopular. And I disagree.

If you haven't noticed why the world is shitty right now, look up and learn about what 1% are doing with their money and wealth.

[-] CameronDev@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago

The top end high earners will just restructure their pay so that they get paid a big bonus once a decade or longer.

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

But similarly if you earn a lot in one year you could restructure it to spread it across several years. I just don't think you should have to do that.

[-] CameronDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

I believe the Australian tax code already allows that to some degree, its never applied to me though. I think its meant for sports people, who will earn lots in 5-10 years, but then not earn anything after that.

[-] luthis 7 points 2 days ago

Tax really isn't the issue here, tax is only significant to you because of wage theft. If the rich weren't hoarding wealth and people had adequate income, you would be earning a lot more and the tax you pay you'd care less about. Unless you're one of them greedy treasure dragons

[-] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 days ago

Winning the lottery is not the American dream. Stop playing if you want to win.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago

only for loterry winners, get rich quick schemes involve other things besides lotteries.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

can just do a wealth tax or maybe rate based on total wealth. under a mil in assets and no tax on your earnings but 10% above a mil and 20% above 2 mil and 30% above 5mil and 40% above 10 mil and 50% above 20 mil and 60% above 50mil and 70% above 100mil and 80% above 200mil and 90% above 500mil and above a bil you start paying on total assets starting at 10% and going up 10% until you get to paying 90% of total worth every year. should hopefully keep every one below a bil.

[-] the_q@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago
[-] deadbeef79000 5 points 2 days ago

Rich people already pay less tax (through shenanigans). The source of the wealth is irrelevant.

[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk -3 points 1 day ago

Top 1% in the US pays 40% of all income tax and top 10% pays 70% while the bottom 50% pays 3.3%

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The bottom 50% holds 2.3% of the wealth. So if your 3.3% is correct then that would say they are paying at least 43% to much.

We shouldn't be taxing basic necessities, we should be taxing things that accrue wealth.

If someone owns a shabby house and their income only makes ends meet they should be paying nothing in taxes.

If you want those people to pay more taxes, the wealth needs to be spread to those groups so that wealth can be taxed.

[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk -4 points 1 day ago

Different argument. The implicit narrative here is that the rich don't pay taxes when in reality they pay almost all the taxes. If you want them to pay even more then that's fair but the reality is that most people don't have the faintest clue what the actual numbers are to begin with.

[-] zout@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

It's only a different argument because you want it to be. You're selectively choosing which percentages you want in the argument, and which ones not. I'm not that versed in the different logical fallacies, but I guess this is a straw man fallacy? Atleast, that's one of the strategies I get for this fallacy; oversimplifying an argument, and then attacking this argument.

[-] zout@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

How much is that in percentages of their income, disregarding artificially deflated incomes of the rich?

[-] abc@suppo.fi 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Why do you think that matters more than how much they contribute?

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Your question is tied to the idea that their contribution is only contrived of their income taxes, and ignores the fact that 2 people working the same hours contributing the same amount don't receive the same income.

If you want equal contributions from all income taxes them you would have to have equal pay for all jobs.

"But my job contributes more to society". No it doesn't.

The doctor needs a roof just like the roofer needs a colonoscopy.

[-] abc@suppo.fi -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“But my job contributes more to society”. No it doesn’t.

It literally, mathematically, does if their wage is higher. Even if there were no tax progression, they pay more taxes, which the society uses.

[-] zout@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

Because the bottom 50% couldn't pay 40% of all income tax, they'd have a negative net income. That's why tax brackets exist, once your basic needs are met you can contribute more to society as a whole. It sucks to pay more if you're earning above median, but it's the cost of living in a society.

[-] Lumidaub@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Because if you could contribute more, you should.

[-] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Definitely unpopular. The trouble is, why not just leave the country the year of the windfall?

By the time the heavier tax is due, you're nowhere to be found.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 2 points 1 day ago

Companies do it, so why not.

Where I live, we do have the option to register a longer tax form for this. It's mostly used by farmers who are not really businesses, but also not salaried. Most of their income comes from "secondary income", such as sales. It gives private persons the option to deduct expenses from their secondary income and to postpone the taxes over 3 years, so they can utilize losses from one year in the next or hold back some taxable income for potential future losses. Just like businesses, except businesses can postpone taxes for more years and have more deductible costs.

Specifically for lottery winnings, these are "tax free", so it doesn't fuck people's regular income statements. The lottery instead pays a tax based on all their payouts, so the tax man still gets his share, but it makes no difference to the individual winners. Much easier to handle for everyone. You win a million, you get a million. That it cost the lottery 1.2 million to pay out is irrelevant for the players.

[-] MJHill@piefed.world 3 points 2 days ago

Nope! Pay for a good tax accountant or pay up.

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I bet you go to one of those fancy places like H&R Block

Lottery isn't taxed in Canada.

And even if it was, that's good.

Anyone who gets rich should pay more taxes. Period. The richer, the more taxes you pay. That's it.

Give back to the society that allowed you to get rich quick.

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

So if someone earns a million dollars once in their life, that million should be taxed at the same rate as a person who earns a million dollars every year of their life? I disagree

Yes. And that's normally why jackpots in the US are usually bigger. To account for the taxes.

[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Good for you, I'm glad you aleady recognize your opinion is unpopular. Maybe you'd be happier with a wealth tax instead of an income tax, where they look at the grand total of everything you own instead of what you brought in recently.

this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2026
35 points (76.1% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

9640 readers
7 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS