Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich • Hacker News Board

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#271

Post by jmulho » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 7:20 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #232

jmulho wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One: right. The employee pays 7.65%. The employer pays the other half. Two: right (the rate is actually 1.45% on wages over $106,800 in 2010) - the idea being that you shouldn't have to pay in infinitely given that the benefits are capped. Three: it is ironic that you mention bankruptcy... that is what tends to happen when the people making spending decisions face no direct consequences. Let me give you a scenario fo…

I don't know what point you're trying to make. You cited a payroll tax rate that was half what people really pay in, and implied that it was the same rate that wealthy people paid. Of course you were wrong on both counts. It takes no great insight to notice this; the same observation is at the center of Warren Buffet's complaint that his tax rate is effectively lower than his secretary's. Your analysis is just dead w…

So far, my "overall point is bankrupt", my "analysis is just dead wrong", I am in some kind of hole I need to dig myself out of, and the point I attempted to defend is "pretty disingenuous". Ok, may we proceed?

The original point is this: "There's a potentially dangerous line that the US is approaching where... a majority of the population will not be paying income taxes at all." That statement contains two contentions: 1) the US is approaching the line where 50% of the population will be paying no income tax at all, 2) this is potentially dangerous.

The first contention hasn’t been disputed. The second is what I believe we are debating.

You interject that the whole discussion ("the income tax debate") is "misleading"/"disingenuous" because it doesn’t consider payroll taxes - something that "lower middle-class people" pay a disproportionate amount of (relative to their income) compared to "wealthy people.'

I attempted to point out that payroll tax isn’t really relevant to the question because everyone pays the same rate up until the point that the tax is capped, which is commensurate with the point at which the benefits are capped.

I will give you that $100,000 per year isn’t all that "wealthy." And I'll give you the following: A person making $500,000 will pay 2.77% of wages in payroll tax (6.2% of the first $106,800, plus 1.45% of total wages). A person making $200,000 will pay 4.76% (same rules). People making $20,000 and $100,000, will both pay 7.65% (same rules).

If I am wrong that the employee pays half of the payroll tax (7.65%) and the employer pays the other half (another 7.65%) please let me know. However, I don’t feel it is relevant to the central question under debate.

I don’t feel your point about payroll taxes is significant enough to dismiss the question about income taxes. Is the 50% threshold "potentially dangerous" or not?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#272

Post by javert » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 7:40 AM UTC

dhugiaskmak wrote: post #209

javert wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government only helps the rich to the degree that it provides courts, police, and military. Beyond that, it's looting them.

So true. Everyone knows that every businessman has completely bootstrapped from scratch all of the roads, utilities, schools, hospitals, scientific research, and a thousand other things that they took advantage of to make their fortunes. No one else made any contributions to their success and that's why it's only fair that we should be required to hand over a significant portion of our incomes to them.

That's right, let's justify stealing from businessmen based on the fact that they grew up in a society that was already stealing from businessmen.

None of the things you mentioned need to (or should) be funded by loot.

In fact, utilities and hospitals didn't used to be in the U.S., and only partially are now. The US education system is a stagnant cesspool that still uses a model developed in the Middle Ages. And the government expropriates more wealth created from non-government funded scientific research, than it generates from funding scientific research.

Look, nobody has a duty to serve as a sacrificial animal to anybody else. You do not have the right to demand that businessmen sacrifice for you or for society.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#273

Post by SoftwareMaven » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 7:46 AM UTC

uytrtyui wrote: post #259

borism wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill & Melinda Foundation?

They do actually give away money - although with some strings attached (like your government not using open source!) IKEA itself - not the owner - is a charity, registered in Holland to be in the Eu but actually in the Dutch antilles so they don't pay Dutch tax and they can keep secret any donations

Do you have a reference to back up the OSS prohibition? It sounds like an urban legend and I couldn't find anything searching, but I've seen weirder things before.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#274

Post by nazgulnarsil » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 7:53 AM UTC

The problems of the world summed up in a thread: the average IQ of hacker news is way above average and yet people feel the need to: comment on issues when they have no idea of the underlying numbers, use terms that they clearly haven't bothered to even look at on wikipedia or a dictionary, repeat fallacies that any undergraduate econ student knows is false, propose vast social engineering schemes with no regard as to their unintended effects.

I mean if we're the smart ones and we're pulling this bullshit what hope does the world have? engineers are supposed to know better. :(

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#275

Post by datapimp » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 7:56 AM UTC

benmccann wrote: post #243

izendejas wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all those that agree with such argument, I'd like to get an answer to these questions: 1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't, you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a well-nourished and healthy wor…

You're arguing that education, infrastructure, and a non-corrupt court system is responsible for this country's success, which may well be true. However, only a tiny amount of spending is on those things. 85% of spending is on social security, the military, and medicaid. We could cut all of those things dramatically without a corresponding decrease in the country's economic output.

Really? I think the ecosystem created around large government contracts is pretty significant, and that it would cease to exist without government spending, which naturally would decrease economic output in that a lot of people would be unemployed, a lot of businesses whose customers are the employees of these businesses would shut down, etc etc. It is most obvious in the case of military spending related to manufacturing, but just think about it for medicaid as well.

I think you're off your rocker with this one.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#276

Post by axod » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 7:57 AM UTC

izendejas wrote: post #217

axod wrote: post #76

Taxing the rich (even more than they are already which IMHO is a lot ) is just punishing success and rewarding failure.

Of all those that agree with such argument, I'd like to get an answer to these questions: 1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't, you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a well-nourished and healthy wor…

> " I'm arguing that if you want to be wealthy one day or are already, it's in your best interest to contribute more."

The rich already contribute more. Where's the line? 90% tax rate? 99.9999%?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#277

Post by benjiweber » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 8:00 AM UTC

megablast wrote: post #181

seabee wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London Popular and successful with who, exactly? I don't know a single person that likes it. Traffic was reduced for a few years but now it's just as bad as ever. And the cost of public transport continually rises above inflation. At least they recently shrank the chargable area. So what has it done, exactly, except raise income for the city and raise pr…

I like it, lots of my friends like it as well. If they did not enact it, things on the road would be worse. They just need to make it more. The cost of public transport is ridiculous, London has to be the most expensive city to travel around.

Not if you buy a bike, which is also the fastest way to get around London. In my experience it's about twice as fast as cars (average speed is less than 10mph anywhere near the centre) and still faster than trains, unless you happen to work right by one of the major terminals and live by a train station.

It costs around 12p per mile to run a bicycle including capital cost, maintenance, additional food etc (though until you hit around 10k miles the costs may be hidden from you). I commute around 1k miles a month and so it costs me around £6 per day to commute by bike, and it is £16 for a slower equivalent train journey. Cars really aren't an alternative as they're too slow.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#278

Post by wyclif » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 8:02 AM UTC

jarek wrote: post #235

ramanujan wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> practical alternative is a total judgment call Right. So is the Autobahn actually all that accident prone? 55 was initially marketed as something that saved gas. After that was debunked, it was changed to "55 saves lives".

There is no state or province in North America with the kind of driving culture that exists in Germany.

What driving culture are you referring to? The wealthy everywhere have a preference for sports cars. That alone doesn't constitute "driving culture", but a lot of what you're talking about is just compression. The US has much more wide open space than Germany does.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#279

Post by philwelch » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 8:03 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #176

gabrielroth wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HOV-lane idea starts out in the wrong place. If you want to raise money from apportioning a scarce resource (in this case space on the road), you use prices, not taxes. Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London—it's too bad Bloomberg's attempt to install them in New York failed.

How is the London "congestion charge" not a tax?

It's a usage fee for public infrastructure. It's no more a tax than your sewer, water, and power bills.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#280

Post by jmaygarden » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 8:28 AM UTC

georgecmu wrote: post #198

ams6110 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that makes speeding unsafe (up to a point) is not so much the speed itself but the delta between the slowest and fastest cars on the road.

Correct, except I would say "in the lane" rather than "on the road". Congestion would limit the speed naturally, but existing regulations such as 'slower vehicles stay in right lane' etc would actually have to be enforced for this to work.

I'd pay an extra 1% if they would just get all the slow folks out of the passing lanes!!!