Anonymous #1 5w

What’s the reasoning?

6

Anonymous #2 5w

Even tax the billionaires more to make up for it, especially when you consider a lot of them did a fair share of sexual exploitation like Epstein, Trump, Clinton, ect

22

Anonymous #2 5w

If They did sexual exploitation, they should be in prison not working

8

Anonymous OP 5w

Generally I’m against tax cuts because they disproportionately benefit the wealthy and simultaneously cutting into our into our already too low pool of funds for social support resources like the reparations you’re talking about. Financial support is really important but direct aid is most effective.

26

Anonymous #1 5w

This is for women who are sexual assault victims, not wealthy people

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Obviously but they aren’t, they are free (besides Epstein ofc)

10

Anonymous #1 5w

We center too much of our tax reform conversations around cutting taxes when it would be much more effective to raise taxes on the wealthy to their pre-Reagan levels, or even better , new deal era levels, and use that to create sustainable social aid.

20

Anonymous #1 5w

If a man and woman make both 50,000. And the woman is a victim, she should be paying less in tax to help in her situation

4

Anonymous OP 5w

Yes I know. But tax cuts that are for “everyone” are almost always more utilized by the wealthy because 1) they have access to filing tools, tax preparation services, and financial education that facilitates this, while many lower income or working class people don’t have time or resources to do so and 2) if it’s structured as cut rather than a credit, it means people with more income save more money.

10

Anonymous #1 5w

Probably should be an income cutoff for it

5

Anonymous #3 5w

The man’s income is irrelevant here imo but say one victim makes 15k and doesn’t even pay taxes because she’s under the taxable income level. Another victim makes $200k. They both claim. Victim one sees de facto no benefit, victim 2 gets the money returned. This is why direct aid is better. It ensures accessibility to those who need it most

10

Anonymous #1 5w

For example, had I been given a tax cut, say something like the $2,000 child credit, after I was raped I would not actually have seen any changes in my return, since my income was so low that the amount I ended up paying in takes was way less than $2k. But if I got $500 or something I would have been able to afford my HIV PEP without going into debt.

10

Anonymous #3 5w

Don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing, though I also don’t have a problem with more affluent women also getting relief if that means we maximize the number of people helped. The only issue is that a wealth cap still doesn’t address how the on the ground situation and the math of the whole thing mean that poor women benefit less. Again, easy fix is to do direct aid instead.

4

Anonymous #2 5w

Yeah heavy on this too

6

Anonymous #1 5w

Also pls ignore all the typos it’s very late at night where I am and I’m sleepy 😭😭💔

7

Anonymous #1 5w

I think I police report should be enough?

2

Anonymous #3 5w

Maybe but like I wasn’t even able to do that. Most rapes aren’t reported officially

5

Anonymous #3 5w

I wasn’t able to do that either

15

Anonymous #2 5w

I’m really sorry that happened to you

3

Anonymous #1 5w

I really respect how well presented you put forth your belief

9