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

Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#121

Post by geggam »

zaroth wrote: post #45
geggam wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was the only tax you would have a really good point

Neither point is good. If I only earn $50 a day and decide to buy a sandwich which has a meal tax of $1.00 - the problem isn’t that I just paid 5% of my earnings in sales taxes. The problem is I’m only earning $50 a day. But even more to the point is that that only way you can calculate that someone earning $15,000 a year is paying a “higher tax rate” than someone earning $15 million a year is by ignore the fact that…

So what you are saying is until you hit the 4th decile you are working for a business who is subsidizing its payroll with tax dollars

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#122

Post by rusk »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #105
pintxo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you live in the USA, the simple fact, that you can leave your house and have access to a (still) working transportation infrastructure and do not need (I hope) private security to protect your life and property is proof that the Government does something productive for society. I am as off by a lot of recent Government actions and their seeming inability to fix obvious issues. But to argue they to nothing pr…

It's a mixed bag. My daughter-in-law was doing a rotation in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins, and the commissioner of police(?) that lived on her block was mugged. She definitely didn't feel safe there, and will not likely accept a residency there because of the security situation. So in Baltimore at least, the local government has fundamentally failed at some of the things mentioned.

Baltimore is a funny one, because I was reading about it and it's actually in one of the wealthiest, most educated parts of the US. But the city itself is a dump. What's going on there if you've got all these wealthy, educated people around, and yet the place is a kip. Is everybody just sitting in their gardens in their leafy suburbs while the world around them burns?

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#123

Post by rusk »

AlexandrB wrote: post #84
malvosenior wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust politicians as much as I trust billionaires: not at all. In fact as the OP points out at least the occasional billionaire will do something productive for society. The same can't be said for the government. > [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population. The only reason health care is so expensive…

> The same can't be said for the government. Good point! We all know how ARPANET turned out.

Google got a lot of government funding at the outset too I heard ...

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#124

Post by zpallin »

logicchains wrote: post #114
zpallin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That logic justifies Kings and Dictators; if someone, by force, amasses total power over a people, then according to your rule they deserve to control it. Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason. All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human…

There's a huge difference. Kings and dictators get power through war and violence. Musk got rich through making and selling things people want. Surely you see the difference between war and commerce.

Well actually no. Kings and Dictators also gain power by being opportunistic in the same way as Musk. They begin by amassing social power, and then at the right moment they take over. See the Medici family of Florence, or the East India Company. War is not the only means for domination.

Also, the only difference between war and commerce is the level of violence applied. War is an exchange, just as commerce is. The only difference is what is being offered in the exchange. In commerce "I will give you this for that." And in war, it's the same: "I will give you my bullets for your surrender."

Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#125

Post by pintxo »

logicchains wrote: post #110
pintxo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you live in the USA, the simple fact, that you can leave your house and have access to a (still) working transportation infrastructure and do not need (I hope) private security to protect your life and property is proof that the Government does something productive for society. I am as off by a lot of recent Government actions and their seeming inability to fix obvious issues. But to argue they to nothing pr…

>Also, I'd like to highlight that millions of citizens are only healthy/alive because of regulations Citation needed? There were practically no regulations a century ago compared to now, and while more people died then, it certainly wasn't millions (unless you're counting something like vaccines as "regulation").

Looking at increased average life expectancy [1], decreased child death rates [2] etc over the last 1-2 millennia, I'd say millions is a very reasonable estimate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#126

Post by ceejayoz »

logicchains wrote: post #110
pintxo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you live in the USA, the simple fact, that you can leave your house and have access to a (still) working transportation infrastructure and do not need (I hope) private security to protect your life and property is proof that the Government does something productive for society. I am as off by a lot of recent Government actions and their seeming inability to fix obvious issues. But to argue they to nothing pr…

>Also, I'd like to highlight that millions of citizens are only healthy/alive because of regulations Citation needed? There were practically no regulations a century ago compared to now, and while more people died then, it certainly wasn't millions (unless you're counting something like vaccines as "regulation").

There are a lot of regulations you'd have to add up, but millions probably isn't an enormous stretch.

Crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags save tens of thousands a year (https://www.nhtsa.gov/seat-belts/seat-belts-save-lives).

The EPA estimates the Clean Air Act alone saved 100k/year. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171226105042.h...

Lead paint, workplace safety, FDA approval, product recalls, aviation safety... Hell, fighting the tobacco industry is a big regulatory move.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#127

Post by pintxo »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #105
pintxo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you live in the USA, the simple fact, that you can leave your house and have access to a (still) working transportation infrastructure and do not need (I hope) private security to protect your life and property is proof that the Government does something productive for society. I am as off by a lot of recent Government actions and their seeming inability to fix obvious issues. But to argue they to nothing pr…

It's a mixed bag. My daughter-in-law was doing a rotation in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins, and the commissioner of police(?) that lived on her block was mugged. She definitely didn't feel safe there, and will not likely accept a residency there because of the security situation. So in Baltimore at least, the local government has fundamentally failed at some of the things mentioned.

Well, obviously this is not a binary situation. There is more than one government, and event within the same government, it's still people governing and people being governed. I am afraid we have to expect some gradient here.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#128

Post by roenxi »

marmadukester39 wrote: post #81
malvosenior wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust politicians as much as I trust billionaires: not at all. In fact as the OP points out at least the occasional billionaire will do something productive for society. The same can't be said for the government. > [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population. The only reason health care is so expensive…

So you want uncertified doctors, unvetted medications and health insurers to be able to do whatever they want to their captive customers. Got it.

You seem to have grasped the essence of the argument, except that health insurers wouldn't have captive customers because the captivity is enforced largely by government regulations.

The point is that mandatory certification of doctors, medications vetted through a highly risk averse process and having no flexibility in dealing with health insurers all secure better outcomes at a cost that nobody apart from the government thinks is reasonable. If anyone had a choice, which they do not, they would probably choose something cheaper.

It is lovely that surgeons are all wealthy, articulate, over-educated polymaths with numerous hobbies and interests (and can probably play a musical instrument, I don't know), etc, etc, except it isn't actually obvious why they need all that. At the end of the day a surgeon needs experience, steady hands and an aversion to doing things that are not necessary. And when tested people will prefer cheap with a good reputation to overqualified but approved by some guild.

It isn't like accidents don't already happen. Can't escape from risk using bureaucracy; minimising risk at all costs is a sign that people are making bad decisions.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#129

Post by mcphage »

ctdonath wrote: post #120
AlexandrB wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not. > Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, wit…

Because the government is democratically elected. Tyranny of the majority is a bad thing.

> Tyranny of the majority is a bad thing.

Tyranny of the minority is significantly worse.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#130

Post by mcphage »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #43
ctdonath wrote: post #7

Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve. The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely puni…

"Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve." Is this actually true? The vast majority of research and innovation is gov't funded. The vast majority of tuition reimburs…

> Is this actually true?

Not even remotely. Not even in the same ballpark as true. Not even the same sport.

Post reply on HN