Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 222 posts

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#171

Post by techsin101 »

Again only tax that should exist is wealth tax. Otherwise you can create as many taxes out of thin air as many words one can think. This complexity has real cost to entrepreneurship and thus GDP. Simple progressive ONE wealth tax can account for all matters indirectly. Funny for country founded because of taxes to have dozens on dozens of taxes, an entertainment tax? Really?

If you live in SF and make 90k you're taxed the same if you made same amount in North Dakota somewhere. Make sense??? One is touching upper class status wise and other is one less paycheck away from being homeless.

Right now we have income, capital, sales, bunch of business taxes, ... Each state City county has its own rate. Whenever it comes to taxes we seem to accept everything, it's taboo subject to talk negatively about any aspect of it despite there being real inefficiencies and better alternatives

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#172

Post by sa46 »

aswanson wrote: post #40
scarface74 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole idea of policemen “risking their lives” is not statistically accurate. Only 144 policemen died in the line of duty in the entire United States last year ( https://www.npr.org/2018/12/27/680410169/more-police-officer... ) The Chicago police department isn’t exactly what most people would call “quality”.

It's not even in the top 10 most dangerous occupations: https://www.ajc.com/news/world/these-are-the-deadliest-jobs-...

Full list of occupations ranked by fatal injuries per 100k workers. The referenced article isn't that useful because it doesn't provide any numbers to do an absolute comparison.

                                           Fatal injuries per
  Rank  Job                                100k workers
  ====  ===============================    =================
  1.    Fishers                            100.0
  2.    Logging workers                     87.3
  3.    Aircraft pilots                     51.3
  4.    Roofers                             45.2
  5.    Refuse material collectors          34.9
  6.    Steel workers                       33.3
  7.    Truck drivers                       26.9
  8.    Farmers, ranchers                   24.0
  9.    Groundskeeping workers              21.0
  10.   Electrical power-line installers    18.6
  11.   Misc agricultural workers           17.7
  12.   Construction workers                17.4
  13.   Helpers, construction trades        17.3
  14.   Maintenance and repair workers      16.6
  15.   Grounds maintenance workers         15.9
  16.   Construction laborers               14.3
  17.   Mechanics                           13.1
  18.   Police                              12.9
  19.   Construction equipment operators    11.8
  20.   Mining machine operators            11.7
  21.   Taxi drivers                        10.5
  22.   Athletes                             9.5
  23.   Painters                             8.9
  24.   Firefighters                         8.9
  25.   Electricians                         8.4

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#173

Post by techsin101 »

macspoofing wrote: post #21

Hate it. There's nothing wrong with taxes, but this kind of tax is onerous. It adds a shit ton of overhead if you have to maintain tax rates for every municipality in US, or the world. This is where I wish government would figure something else out. Have one state or (preferably) federal agency levy one tax, and then figure out how to disperse the collected income to municipalities - instead of each municipality crea…

All taxes can be consolidated into one tax, Wealth tax! which can directly account for everything. i.e. Live in NYC vs suburbs. Got 5 kids vs single. No income, sales, federal, city, county, state, capital, property, SS... list goes on. If you're rich you pay more if you're not you don't. How do you know how rich someone is? Total wealth. Federal government should ban any other taxes that state would want to implement

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#174

Post by sl1ck731 »

sa46 wrote: post #172
aswanson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even in the top 10 most dangerous occupations: https://www.ajc.com/news/world/these-are-the-deadliest-jobs-...

Full list of occupations ranked by fatal injuries per 100k workers. The referenced article isn't that useful because it doesn't provide any numbers to do an absolute comparison. Fatal injuries per Rank Job 100k workers ==== =============================== ================= 1. Fishers 100.0 2. Logging workers 87.3 3. Aircraft pilots 51.3 4. Roofers 45.2 5. Refuse material collectors 34.9 6. Steel workers 33.3 7. Truck…

Why is aircraft pilots so high? I'm assuming it isn't just commercial airline pilots?

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#175

Post by IanCal »

intended wrote: post #169
strictnein wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pension systems have overestimated their annual returns for decades and planned for future returns that are completely out of whack with reality. This is a pretty well known issue. So if you're putting money into a system, and you know it's not enough to cover your benefits, you're not exactly just a innocent victim here. You're benefitting from a system that you know is broken.

How can a pension fund overestimate success? Firstly pension funds are conservative in their estimates, they aren’t growth funds. And what precisely is anyone supposed to do? NOT put money into a fund ? The only option other than a pension plan is to put it in a more risky fund. Which means your investment would be blown out post 2008. AND that means your benefit from that job changes, making it less likely for you t…

There's two common ways of doing pensions.

One is a fund you pay into and at the end you get whatever it's worth.

The other is a scheme you pay into which guarantees a set payout at the end. It's that which often causes problems, because the scheme has promised payouts that significantly exceed their investments if they have assumed greater growth than they get.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#176

Post by krapht »

techsin101 wrote: post #173
macspoofing wrote: post #21

Hate it. There's nothing wrong with taxes, but this kind of tax is onerous. It adds a shit ton of overhead if you have to maintain tax rates for every municipality in US, or the world. This is where I wish government would figure something else out. Have one state or (preferably) federal agency levy one tax, and then figure out how to disperse the collected income to municipalities - instead of each municipality crea…

All taxes can be consolidated into one tax, Wealth tax! which can directly account for everything. i.e. Live in NYC vs suburbs. Got 5 kids vs single. No income, sales, federal, city, county, state, capital, property, SS... list goes on. If you're rich you pay more if you're not you don't. How do you know how rich someone is? Total wealth. Federal government should ban any other taxes that state would want to implemen…

Please research the economic literature on wealth taxes. There are numerous problems with it, too many to discuss in a comment.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#177

Post by scarface74 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #132
scarface74 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About a third less than garbage collectors.... https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-... Does that mean we should pay garbage collectors more in hazard pay than police?

No. Garbagemen should have life and disability insurance. Police and fire employees tend to live shorter lives due to specific conditions related their occupation. It’s apples and oranges.

According to another post, the study attributed much of the difference to shift work and bad eating habits that may result from shift work. This also isn’t unique to police work among blue collar workers.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#178

Post by jacquesm »

Shivetya wrote: post #14

Chicago is in the hole for nearly thirty billion dollars. They have been floating the idea of a ten billion dollar bond with the debt structured in a way which lets current politicians escape the fallout from its payment and not having to raise property taxes. The state of Illinois is not well off either with debts estimated at the low of one hundred thirty billion to two hundred fifty billion. An Illinois proposal j…

> So expect more digital taxes in your future.

This is not a problem that will be solved with taxes, it will be solved with a global reset, and those are usually accompanied by major wars. This is not a Chicago problem, an Illinois problem or even an American problem.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#179

Post by kgwgk »

intended wrote: post #169
strictnein wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pension systems have overestimated their annual returns for decades and planned for future returns that are completely out of whack with reality. This is a pretty well known issue. So if you're putting money into a system, and you know it's not enough to cover your benefits, you're not exactly just a innocent victim here. You're benefitting from a system that you know is broken.

How can a pension fund overestimate success? Firstly pension funds are conservative in their estimates, they aren’t growth funds. And what precisely is anyone supposed to do? NOT put money into a fund ? The only option other than a pension plan is to put it in a more risky fund. Which means your investment would be blown out post 2008. AND that means your benefit from that job changes, making it less likely for you t…

> Firstly pension funds are conservative in their estimates,

Not really.

https://davidgcrane.org/?page_id=702

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#180

Post by anthuman »

intended wrote: post #170
conanbatt wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because pensions are guaranteed benefits. So if you put it on a bond, and the bond goes down, you need to draw more taxes to make the difference. Pensions are partially the outcome of wishful result-oriented thinking ("workers should have pensions they can depend on, so make the promise first and then the solution will happen").

What? How the heck is that a pension ?? That’s a bond. Why does that have anything to do with a pension ? And who in his right mind plants a bond and links it to a pension ? How does that even work? A bond is a loan. That means the firm or institution is taking a loan. A pension is the opposite of that - it’s money taken from employee payments and added to a conservative fund with a time horizon of 20-30 years. This…

What do you think "conservative fund" is? It is a fund of bonds. What do you think pensions are?

There is nothing more "conservative" in investing than bonds ( particularly treasury bonds ).

Nobody "plants" a bond and links it to a pension. A pension buys bonds, stocks, etfs, etc which hopefully grows in value or pays healthy interest.

The problem is if the pension doesn't do as well as expected or the ratio of workers to retirees gets too skewed and they can't meet their defined payouts.

Post reply on HN