People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike. • Hacker News Board

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#81

Post by evgen » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 1:18 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #63

ryandvm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your edit is the best part. I wouldn't necessarily mind paying higher taxes if the government were a capable solutions provider. Alas, if you've ever actually worked for the government, you know they are not.

I was in the Navy and the month before the end of every fiscal year was "see what kind of expensive shit we can find to buy because I need to use up my budget so I don't lose it next year" time. After that experience, it's hard for me to have faith in the institution of government as an agent of efficient allocation of capital.

You are quite delusional if you don't thnk this happens in the business world as well. It is an artifact of any large and centralized budgeting process. If your group goes over budget you are penalized, and if you are under budget you are not rewarded and are sometimes even penalized (for not delivering an accurate budget projection and tying up capital that could have been better used elsewhere, like those over-budget idiots two floors below... :) Using all of your allocated funds is the most rational decision to make in these situations, so you spend it on whatever you can.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#82

Post by gyardley » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 1:29 AM UTC

encoderer wrote: post #57

gyardley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America's population is over 300M. Do you really think 3MM+ people all 'own the government' as a collective? Do you really think 3MM+ people are responsible for bankrupting the government? I had a good year last year thanks to the business I founded, so I'm in this top 1% of taxpayers, but I have exactly the same political influence as everybody else. Less, since I can't even vote in this country. And instead of 'ban…

Yes, absolutely. In this country your political influence is directly proportionate to the money you invest in attaining political influence. The fact that you chose not to spend your money and use your connections for political gain doesn't make your ability to do so any less noteworthy.

Oh? The fact that you chose not to do [X] doesn't make your ability to do [X] any less noteworthy?

There's a knife in a knife rack in my kitchen. By your logic I should be jailed for stabbing someone, since I clearly have the ability to do it.

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise - that in America, the government is subverted by well-funded lobbyists and cash contributions to politicians. Instead of getting angry at the top 1% of taxpayers, some of whom have nothing to do with this subversion, why don't you focus your anger a little more, and restrict it to the people who actually back the lobbyists and contribute the cash?

I'm a little uncomfortable being on the receiving end of such anger, just because my startup did alright. I'm sure there's plenty of others in that top 1% of taxpayers who similarly have nothing to do with what you're actually angry at.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#83

Post by jfager » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 1:49 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #67

jfager wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim is that John Paulson is contributing 5 orders of magnitude more to society than teachers, social workers, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, engineers, nurses, and soldiers?

It seems a bit intellectually unfair to pit one specific person against a bunch of vague groups of people that we generally hold favorable views towards. In the aggregate, I think one can make the case that the wealthy contribute more to society than the poor, in the form of jobs, capital, etc. How do you determine value to a society other than through what the society is willing to pay? And if those other jobs were…

A man was paid $6b for winning a bet against homeowners and the entire financial industry. It is relevant to point that out, because it directly contradicts the idea that a person's wealth is proportional to what they've contributed. And it's not like similar situations are hard to find (though his is a much more dramatic example than most).

What's intellectually dishonest is pretending that money is the only way to measure value.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#84

Post by _delirium » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 1:52 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #44

_delirium wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There might be an ethical argument, but the "rich people have lots of options, and might leave" argument isn't really convincing to me. Recall that to avoid U.S. income tax, you must move abroad and permanently renounce your citizenship. How many wealthy Americans do you think would really do that solely due to a tax hike? Especially one that was in the range that would actually likely be passed (i.e. not 99%)?

I'm not saying they might leave. I'm saying that rich people have a good life in any kind of system. This includes being mobile. Your point was we should take money from those who got the greatest benefit from our society. By that reasoning, people who are alive now and would have died otherwise have it the best, right? Or does that extra boat or summer house so important that it's a better benefit than living? Liste…

Is it really true that higher taxes will lead to the rich being criminals and politically connected? My impression is that Sweden, for example, isn't considered more corrupt than the United States, despite having much higher taxes.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#85

Post by ryanwaggoner » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 2:19 AM UTC

jfager wrote: post #83

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit intellectually unfair to pit one specific person against a bunch of vague groups of people that we generally hold favorable views towards. In the aggregate, I think one can make the case that the wealthy contribute more to society than the poor, in the form of jobs, capital, etc. How do you determine value to a society other than through what the society is willing to pay? And if those other jobs were…

A man was paid $6b for winning a bet against homeowners and the entire financial industry. It is relevant to point that out, because it directly contradicts the idea that a person's wealth is proportional to what they've contributed. And it's not like similar situations are hard to find (though his is a much more dramatic example than most). What's intellectually dishonest is pretending that money is the only way to…

Are you seriously arguing that millions of people should be taxed more on the basis of what one person may have done?

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#86

Post by ryanwaggoner » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 2:23 AM UTC

evgen wrote: post #81

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in the Navy and the month before the end of every fiscal year was "see what kind of expensive shit we can find to buy because I need to use up my budget so I don't lose it next year" time. After that experience, it's hard for me to have faith in the institution of government as an agent of efficient allocation of capital.

You are quite delusional if you don't thnk this happens in the business world as well. It is an artifact of any large and centralized budgeting process. If your group goes over budget you are penalized, and if you are under budget you are not rewarded and are sometimes even penalized (for not delivering an accurate budget projection and tying up capital that could have been better used elsewhere, like those over-budg…

I'm sure it does, but the difference is that companies have to deal with competition, while governments are effective monopolies. If I, as a customer, dislike the value I get for a product or service, I can switch. If as an investor, I don't like the returns, I can sell. But if I don't like the way the Navy is investing my tax dollars, what can I do? Yes, it can be changed, but I can't really do much about it as an individual. Over time, this situation conspires to create government waste because there's no accountability. There might be oversight, but the consequences of mismanagement and inefficiency isn't organizational death, the way it is (or should be) in the private sector.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#87

Post by grandalf » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 2:47 AM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #80

grandalf wrote: post #23

Most people in the US pay no taxes at all. The $250K threshold hits lots of hard working professionals and entrepreneurs who are by no means "rich" and who work extremely hard. I'd argue that people earning $250K who are paying off loans and working 60+ hour weeks cannot afford it... and that taxing them is a horrible policy idea, no matter how well it resonates with voters who themselves pay no taxes (or people like…

"Most people in the US pay no taxes at all. The $250K threshold hits lots of hard working professionals and entrepreneurs who are by no means "rich" and who work extremely hard." Let's see now... when the median family income in the US is $40,000 per year, an individual making $250,000 per year is undoubtedly rich. They might not be super rich, or even very rich. But they're rich.

What about differences in cost of living? Is a maid in San Fran who earns $80K per year rich?

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#88

Post by bwh2 » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 2:51 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #77

bwh2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you should be in favor of dropping capital gains to 0% then for everyone, right? Probably income tax too for that matter, because that discourages people from working, and unemployment is the last thing we want to have.

Actually, yes. I prefer a flat tax on consumption.

Fair enough. I also prefer a consumption tax, not flat though. But if we're going to have an income-based tax, I'd rather have all types of income treated/taxed equally.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#89

Post by jfager » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 5:23 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #85

jfager wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A man was paid $6b for winning a bet against homeowners and the entire financial industry. It is relevant to point that out, because it directly contradicts the idea that a person's wealth is proportional to what they've contributed. And it's not like similar situations are hard to find (though his is a much more dramatic example than most). What's intellectually dishonest is pretending that money is the only way to…

Are you seriously arguing that millions of people should be taxed more on the basis of what one person may have done?

Are you seriously suggesting only one person has gotten wealthy without contributing to society?

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#90

Post by pdxgene » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 6:26 AM UTC

bwh2 wrote: post #31

Doctors, lawyers, and other paycheck people making $250k pay around the 35% rate. They get hit hard. Meanwhile, professional investors earning the same amount pay the capital gains rate of 15%, which is less than a paycheck family earning $80k. I don't want paycheck people to pay more taxes, I want the capital gains rate to go up.

Somewhat counterintuitively, raising the capital gains rate actually tends to decrease overall capital gains receipts. This is mostly due to the fact that capital gains realizations are some of the easiest to time, and if advantageous, defer.

This is a natural consequence of a convoluted system with complicated rules that encourage schemes. Another sad consequence of this system is that, as with our managed health care system, it creates a massive amount of regulatory and managerial overhead.

The engineer in me would love to see a flat tax, and the resultant elimination of layers of bureaucracy, like the chopping out of so many lines of unnecessary code. Dare to dream...