Live data from Hacker News

Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

bloomberg.com

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#91
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in the US, federal dollars overwhelmingly go to Medicare and Social Security; the United States is a health insurance and HR benefits provider that happens to have an army.

Roughly speaking, 25% of spending goes to the military, 25% to SS/Medicare, and the other 50% to everything else. It is important to note that the 25% for SS/MC is funded by a separate tax, targeted to those programs. Without getting sidetracked over budget unification, it is equally important to note that this separate tax has generated a surplus for decades, and has therefore been used to subsidize the rest of the…

27% of federal spending in 2015 was Medicare, 33% was social insurance (social security, SSDI, and unemployment), 15% was military.

The United States Federal Government is a heavily armed HR benefits company.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#92
post #65
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

76% of voters favor higher taxes on the wealthiest americans, 61% favor Warren's "wealth tax", and even 40% support a marginal tax rate of 70% on americans earning $10M or more: http://fortune.com/2019/02/04/support-for-tax-increase-on-we... this would contradict your theory that "the common worker hates taxes", since most Americans want more taxation, not less.

That’s kind of obvious, no? It’s like asking somebody if they want free stuff. Of course they say yes, it costs them nothing. Ask the same question where their own taxes go up and see what the answer is. Reminds me of the HN thread about the 2018 tax changes (limited SALT deduction). The same people who call for higher taxes (many of them in the top 5% income range) start complaining about their taxes going up. Every…

> It’s like asking somebody if they want free stuff. Of course they say yes, it costs them nothing.

OK, why don't you ask these same people if they think taxes should be raised on people poorer than them. Do you think 71% would agree with that also? Because that also costs these people nothing, right?

In other words I disagree with your assertion that Americans cannot tell, or care, for the difference between an under-taxed wealthy person and an over-burdened poor person.

> Reminds me of the HN thread about the 2018 tax changes (limited SALT deduction). The same people who call for higher taxes (many of them in the top 5% income range) start complaining about their taxes going up.

that is because property taxes vary wildly across different states due to policies of the local state governments governments and it amounts to punishment of states that have more comprehensive taxation and social services for their populations, in other words, have a larger number of Democratic voters. Taxation should not be distributed based on political affiliation. The states that have higher property taxes are less of a burden on the federal government since their populations are more educated, less desperately poor, and have better healthcare.

As you won't be surprised, I live in a SALT-sensitive state, but even people here who live below the poverty line in a house that was long ago paid for are being killed by their property taxes. They are poor people who are over-taxed and the recent changes made things worse. My taxes did not go up at all since my property taxes happen to be quite low in any case. However, I still oppose the changes in the SALT deduction, for the reasons above. So another anecdote of someone that can actually apply reasoning about the common good to a taxation question rather than caring only about myself paying more.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#93
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly speaking, 25% of spending goes to the military, 25% to SS/Medicare, and the other 50% to everything else. It is important to note that the 25% for SS/MC is funded by a separate tax, targeted to those programs. Without getting sidetracked over budget unification, it is equally important to note that this separate tax has generated a surplus for decades, and has therefore been used to subsidize the rest of the…

27% of federal spending in 2015 was Medicare, 33% was social insurance (social security, SSDI, and unemployment), 15% was military. The United States Federal Government is a heavily armed HR benefits company.

These numbers seem very high to me! Do you have a source? Here's one sounding the alarm that medicare spending has gone as high as 14% of federal spending and may reach 20% in the next 25 years:

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/budget-explainer-medicare

Edit: I think maybe you were reading a source describing "health care spending" including not only Medicare but also Medicaid, CHIP, health care for veterans, and possibly other categories of health expenditures. Which doesn't really take away from your point! TIL

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#94
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly speaking, 25% of spending goes to the military, 25% to SS/Medicare, and the other 50% to everything else. It is important to note that the 25% for SS/MC is funded by a separate tax, targeted to those programs. Without getting sidetracked over budget unification, it is equally important to note that this separate tax has generated a surplus for decades, and has therefore been used to subsidize the rest of the…

27% of federal spending in 2015 was Medicare, 33% was social insurance (social security, SSDI, and unemployment), 15% was military. The United States Federal Government is a heavily armed HR benefits company.

Too late to edit my comment, but my numbers seem to be wrong, or at least out of date.

During the Bush years, military spending was in the 25% (or greater) range.

SS/MC was lower (as a percentage of the budget) than today, but it was closer to 33% than 25%.

See e.g. https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2007-u-s-federal-budget-and-sp... which has links to other years.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#95
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another reason why the Founders' recognition that ruling via a simple majority was an eventual death knoll for a society.

I.e. democracy is bad if you disagree with the results.

pitchforks and torches is also democratic. Just because something is democratic, doesn't mean that it is unassailably good. Democracy is another name for mob rule and provides zero protection for minorities against the majority. There is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e. democracy is bad if you disagree with the results.

pitchforks and torches is also democratic. Just because something is democratic, doesn't mean that it is unassailably good. Democracy is another name for mob rule and provides zero protection for minorities against the majority. There is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.

> pitchforks and torches is also democratic.

No, not at all. Democracy means rule of the people, not rule of the strongest.

> Just because something is democratic, doesn't mean that it is unassailably good.

Of course not. But if something is not democratic, then it is definitely bad.

> Democracy is another name for mob rule

Doesnt matter. That ``mob`` has a right not to be ruled by someone else.

> and provides zero protection for minorities against the majority.

It does not provide electricity either.

> There is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.

That is an accurate description of North Korea.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. See? Platitudes are easy.

So you favor autocracy (and delusionally believe that dictators tend to be the sheep)?

I favor the representative democracy with checks and balances that America has, and a strong bias towards preserving minority rights over majority rules.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you favor autocracy (and delusionally believe that dictators tend to be the sheep)?

I favor the representative democracy with checks and balances that America has, and a strong bias towards preserving minority rights over majority rules.

Oh sorry. So you favor plutocracy, not autocracy.

Re: Warren Has a Good Beginning for Ending Corporate-Tax Avoidance

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I favor the representative democracy with checks and balances that America has, and a strong bias towards preserving minority rights over majority rules.

Oh sorry. So you favor plutocracy, not autocracy.

Are you trying to change my mind or just insult me for not sharing your worldview? There are plenty of shades between where I sit and plutocrats, just as I'm aware there are shades between where you sit and the gulag.

Reducto ad adsurbium just lets anyone sit comfortably inside the edge of the boundary you've set. It's an extremely uncompelling form of argumentation.

Post reply on HN