Taxation is theft.
Please don't spam the site with sound-bites; we're after a conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"taxation [is] a clear violation of the non-aggression principle."
When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
181–190 of 229 posts
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
First income tax in the UK was in 1842, first income tax in France was 1789 - could you find one that has been going since 1017 AD?
There aren't many sovereign nations that have been in existence since 1017 AD, so that sort of makes your question moot. The Code of Hammurabi describes Babylonian taxes and the manners of levy. The Egyptians and Romans levied income taxes. There is of course the gafol/Danegeld/heregald of the Anglo-Saxons. You've got taxes/tolls paid by merchants on the Silk Road and certainly I've read of taxation in Ashoka's era a…
>There aren't many sovereign nations that have been in existence since 1017 AD, so that sort of makes your question moot.
Sure. Which is why it's a bit ridiculous to say there has been a millennia of income tax we have been learning from.
Tax in general has existed - progressive income taxes, however, seem to be a fairly recent development. Purely in the administration sense, it would have been far more difficult to do in the past and as a progressive tax system does not actively benefit the people in power in a feudal or imperial government, it would be unlikely for a progressive tax to be implemented, especially one that exists in peace-time. In fact, feudal era taxes seem to have been actively regressive.
Removing a progressive tax system, something I believe is a bad idea to do, wouldn't roll things back to older systems of taxation. We wouldn't sacrifice the development of financial policies and tax frameworks, and we didn't arrive at the concept of a progressive system because of hundreds of years of failed tax policies. We have a structurally different government than countries did for hundreds of years prior.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the Nirvana fallacy. Because we can't fix everything, there's no point in trying to fix anything. For example: "what's the point in having seatbelts? People still die in car crashes." The reality is, just like a seatbelts reduce the number of fatalities in car crashes, each loop hole closed makes things a little more difficult for people to shelter their assets.
But at what point, OP's criticism is a qualitative criticism of the approach being advocated? For instance, if someone says that alternative medicine fails for n different reasons, would you say that the person is committing Nirvana fallacy or that there is something to say about the fundamental failures of alternative medicine? The qualitative fault I'm trying to point out is that trying to tax 'rich people' is a fa…
His argument, as stated, is a use of the Nirvana fallacy. But it can certainly be re-phrased and re-worked into something substantial. The general sentiment isn't completely without merit; people will always exploit loop holes in the tax system. But to say there isn't any point in closing this loop hole or that loop hole because people will just use another is an assertion, not an argument. You need to provide evidence to support this claim. Maybe those other loop holes are more of a hassle, or require substantial initial investment to take advantage of (like re-structuring your company to incorporate in a different country), or don't shelter as many assets from taxes. The point is, you need evidence to back up the claim.
> The qualitative fault I'm trying to point out is that trying to tax 'rich people' is a failed attempt because no matter how effective you can implement your tax measures, at the end of the day people can move to other countries and your own country starts to suffer more than it benefits from the increased taxes.
That's more of an argument against taxes in general, isn't it? You tax people high enough and they'll leave. There's a certain "sweet spot" at which you tax people just enough to provide good services without making people leave. I wouldn't dispute that. But for that to be a valid argument in this case, you'd have to provide evidence to show that closing these loop holes puts the tax burden of people above that "sweet spot."
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#184I think the thing we keep forgetting is if "everyone" makes more the only thing that is going to change is housing and food prices and you will gain 0.
If everyone makes $10,000 a year more then rich people will barely notice. Poor people would be able to afford to heat their homes and buy insurance. I think everyone who's poor would consider that much a gain.
So the energy and insurance tycoons are the big winners?
Also - What makes you think poor people will make such practical spending decisions? I hardly believe they will buy insurance. More likely to buy nicer food/dining out/entertainment and nicer cars/clothes/signals of wealth. Again, this materializes mostly as profit in companies owned by the rich.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would a flat tax rate avoid the unfortunate reality of burdening the poor with relatively high taxes? Tax brackets, in theory, mitigate this by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income individuals and families. A flat tax rate would surely simplify things, but I'm not convinced it would be the best solution.
There could be a basic minimum income level that is tax free. This would be very similar to what we have right now. For example, income under around 9,000 (or was it 10,000?) in Canada is not taxed federally.
That’s true in the US as well, although the number changes depending on marital and dependent status (from $9,500 to $21,300).
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code." I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot. The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a signif…
A flat tax rate would put a significant, unfair burden on poorer people.
Every flat tax proposal I’ve seen has either an income floor or a ‘prebate’ to counteract this. Generally they are set at an amount that actually improves the lot of the lowest income earners, largely due to knee-jerk reactions such as yours.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#187"The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts [...] was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy [...] The first half of that theory may well have come true. Many of the world’s most successful companies are American — not only Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, but also Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson and JPMorgan Chase." The article fails to mention that even when the tax code was 90% on the highest e…
Anecdotally I have some involvement in a private school here in the US that caters to foreign exchange students from China. These are the cream of the crop with the best education from wealthy backgrounds and are highly intelligent. NONE of them plan on becoming doctors. Every single one of them is going to business school because doctors are paid relatively shit compared to what they will make on the business side.…
Yes, the prospect of making big money attracts/motivate certain kinds of very smart people. But if your goal in life is to make gazillions of $, why would you want to become a doctor? This is the wrong job. And if you want to become a doctor in China, why would you want to come to the US to study? It makes more sense for business. And the good news is that to become a doctor, while you do need to be smart, there's no need to be the cream of the crop in intelligence or wealth.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#188The business leaders who really matter are motivated by their passion and curiosity, shaping their legacy, changing the world, etc. I don't think a personal tax rate of 90% would stop the next Steve Jobs from doing important work. If we're talking about a class of people who don't enjoy their work and won't keep at it without outsized financial incentives, I really don't think we're describing visionaries that we dep…
I dislike the myth that business leaders and entrepreneurs who are motivated by money do not matter. There are plenty of income-motivated people who are building meaningful products.
Sure, but income and wealth inequality is affecting our sociopolitical stability. Should we really prioritize their success over the lower and middle classes? How much higher should executive pay be compared to the workers? Why should executives get tens of millions per year while the laborers make $20-40k/yr?
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
First income tax in the UK was in 1842, first income tax in France was 1789 - could you find one that has been going since 1017 AD?
There aren't many sovereign nations that have been in existence since 1017 AD, so that sort of makes your question moot. The Code of Hammurabi describes Babylonian taxes and the manners of levy. The Egyptians and Romans levied income taxes. There is of course the gafol/Danegeld/heregald of the Anglo-Saxons. You've got taxes/tolls paid by merchants on the Silk Road and certainly I've read of taxation in Ashoka's era a…
Thank for putting into words what I thought ^^
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#190I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…
There's a simple solution to it, no? Abolish all taxes on income, dividends, or capital gains. Introduce a single tax on wealth. Every year tax a certain percentage of one's capital holdings, whether capital gain is realized or not.
Under your proposal, the roughly 50% of Americans with zero net wealth would pay nothing. That’s fine on paper, but it would actually incent people to stay in debt and dis-incent the accumulation of savings.
Look at it this way, I can either buy a bigger house with more debt whenever I have some extra money laying around, or I can save that cash and have the government take some of it every year. You also incent people to spend money on non-material things like travel and entertainment, rather than spending cash on a reasonable car (because leasing the car and blowing the other $20k in Vegas sounds like more fun).
There’s a simple maxim in taxes and economics - do not tax activities you want to encourage, and tax those which you want to curtail.