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

No One Goes There Anymore

noonegoesthereanymore.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 322 posts

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#101

Post by TylerE »

exabrial wrote: post #66

> While homeless, my sons and I routinely tried to find out-of-the-way public tables. Food at restaurants is marked up thousands of percent to cover costs of buildings, rent, power, human capital. The raw materials to make your food are pennies and are available to the average consumer. This is straight BS. There -are- people that truly have issues that lead them to a homeless condition, but this person is not one of…

This is "straight BS".

Typical COGS on food at a dine in restaurant is 30-40%. It certainly isn't marked up "thousands of percent".

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#102

Post by adrianN »

rayiner wrote: post #72
malwarebytess wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the obligate vacant comment about donating to the Federal Government when there's talk of taxes being too low on the wealthy. Get a new line. The problems in this country, including the mess that is the tax system, cannot be solved by snarky comments like "donate your money if you think taxes are too low." They require a longitudinal and deep response.

The problems in this country also cannot be solved by empty rhetoric about “taxes being too low on the wealthy.” Taxes on the wealthy in the US aren’t dramatically lower than in Europe. The top tax bracket in Germany is 45%, versus 37% + state. So if you live in any of the 9 states with a top state bracket of 8% or higher, including New York and California, the top income tax bracket is actually lower in Germany. Cap…

Arguably taxes on the wealthy are too low in Europe too. There is constant talk about taxing the wealthy more in Germany for example.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#103

Post by [deleted] »

gfodor wrote: post #49
oars wrote: post #33

Does anyone know what this condition is? I may be living in a bubble but I have no idea what this is. Would love to do some more research myself to understand, and I'm glad my taxes are helping people like this out.

I have Cystic Fibrosis and the post made me feel like it’s that. Started quarantining early Feb. Any severe disease which targets respiratory is a presumed death sentence for people with CF. Fortunately it seems CF patients are surviving.

[deleted]

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#104

Post by sandworm101 »

lifeformed wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital gains is 20% federal plus state (13% in California). Germany’s capital gains rate is 30.5%, lower than California and New York. Regardless, there is just not enough capital gains income for that to matter. For example, Biden’s plan to tax capital gains as ordinary income for taxpayers making over $1 million per year is expected to bring in less than $50 billion a year in revenues. Eliminating the capital gain…

I don't know why you say hundreds of billions of dollars isn't worth taking about, compared to trillions. $150B is 15% of $1T, a sizable chunk. And the total income of US billionaires being just $130B doesn't quite capture the complete picture, when their combined wealth is in the trillions, and their assets keep growing.

>> when their combined wealth is in the trillions, and their assets keep growing.

Because capital gains, ironically, do not apply to gains in capital assets. They have to "realize" the gains as "income", usually by selling the asset. So a millionaire (stockholder) can become a billionaire without ever paying a cent in capital gains tax. Only when they sell the stock is it subject to taxation.

This allows them to pay tax selectively. Even if they want a chunk of money all at once, they can take a loan against their capital assets. There is no income realized when taking a loan. They then selectively sell stock to pay down the loan, preferably in years when they are taking a loss in some other area, nullifying the taxable gain on the asset sale. Such tricks are why, for billionaires, paying capital gains tax is basically voluntary.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#106

Post by perl4ever »

sandworm101 wrote: post #95
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economists calculate taxes using the “tax wedge”—i.e. what you pay in taxes versus what you cost your employer. According to: https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#WP4gh... , take home on $300,000 in California is $185,000. But including employer side payroll taxes but excluding benefits, you actually cost your employer $313,000. So your tax wedge is about 41%. Then add in the sales and property taxe…

If we are making international comparisons, I would add the cost of health insurance in california as a "tax". That's the only way to reasonably compare western countries. I had a friend try to adopt a baby from china many years ago (1990s). He was rejected. The Chinese thought he didn't earn enough to safely raise a kid. They were using a means test designed for US applicants. My friend lobbied to explain all the th…

I don't follow how this could be possible. I'd think most people in the US either would be getting health insurance from the government (Medicare, Medicaid), from an "Obamacare" exchange and subsidized, or from an employer where they don't pay cash.

So where would the discrepancy in accounting between that and Canada come from? It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health insurance retail.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#107

Post by brailsafe »

nloladze wrote: post #52
kulig wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a country with plenty of socialized services, and when I see stories like this it seems to me like it's everyone for themselves in the USA. Seems kinda bleak.

Not really, just don't get sick or terminally ill or you're $%#!ed

or trip on a curb, or take up any sports, or get old

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#108

Post by dang »

GEBBL wrote: post #16
dang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DoreenMichele is a well-known HN user and many of her posts have appeared here. She often makes a new domain per blog topic, but I presume readers recognize her username. The upvotes seem organic, as far as I can tell. There's no issue. You've posted three dismissive comments to this thread. Could you please stop? If you don't like this reading material, there are 29 other articles on the front page, and don't miss t…

I did not recognise the username, but will take that into consideration for future. For me, it looked like a request for money and I felt it was not right, but I see I am mistaken and would like to apologise to Michele.

That's really nice of you, and I'm sure not only she but everyone reading this will feel a bit better for it.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#109

Post by [deleted] »

amscanne wrote: post #87
drpgq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Ontarian it is frustrating how the marginal tax rate has risen over 50% over the last decade, but ignorant people think things are the same as in the US. Of course capital gains on primary residences is taxed at 0% so it isn't really surprising that real estate and its financialization is Ontario's main industry.

I don’t think it’s just that it has risen over 50%, the increases over the last ~6 years are quite rapid. Consider BC [1]: Top income tax bracket in BC in 2013: 43.7% Top income tax bracket in BC in 2014 and 2015: 45.8% Top income tax bracket in BC in 2016 and 2017: 47.7% Top income tax bracket in BC in 2018 and 2019: 49.8% Top income tax bracket in BC starting in 2020: 53.5%. I believe that there have been similar e…

[deleted]

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#110

Post by dang »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #29
cossray wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dang, this is irrelevant to the topic but I needed to ask it. Are you an individual or several 'users/employees/maintainers' using the same username? Your omnipresent has always been intriguing to me

I was amused to learn that he's "Dan G" and not "dang!", too. I still think of him as "dang!", though. I also really appreciate the thankless job he does here. Thanks, Dan! (Does that mean it's not thankless now... Should I edit this comment? Arrghh!)

It's both: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22767296

(The inimitable DonHopkins provided the perfect gloss)

Post reply on HN