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

141–150 of 322 posts

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#141

Post by drran »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Wealth tax != Income tax. You can grow your wealth without virtually no taxable income. It's real wealth - you can buy houses and yachts with it - but you don't need to pay tax unless you choose to. In reality most money at this level is made by speculation, and speculation is spectacularly under-taxed. For example Forex trading in the City of London moves $6.6 trillion of money around, every single day. A To…

"Net value taxation" may be the future. How much were you worth last year? How much are you worth today? Net = income. We would need exceptions for things like houses, but such an approach would capture all capital gains in real time.

"Net value taxation" is called inflation. 20% inflation will make everyone rich in no time.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#142

Post by quickthrower2 »

VectorLock wrote: post #28

I have to admit that this article sure has me curious what this unnamed condition is...

Me too, but I also feel it’s wrong to ask. And really it doesn’t matter, it’s better not to know as then this post is more applicable to people in the same boat across all diseases the average person doesn’t understand

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#143

Post by amelius »

magicalhippo wrote: post #30

When I see about half my paycheck going to taxes it feels a bit rough. But then I think of stories like this, and how easily it could have been me with an illness requiring expensive medical treatment and possibly preventing me from working regular jobs. And so I pay my tax with pleasure, knowing that if something were to happen to me or my fellow citizen, at least there wouldn't be millions of dollars in hospital bi…

The fact that you are making that much money is without doubt also something you have to thank society for. Would you be able to make the same amount of money in every other country, and without the sacrifices made by other people over the course of history? This is also something to keep in mind.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#144

Post by AdrianB1 »

ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #59
lotsofpulp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US government healthcare spend is huge, it is not tiny compared to military. $1.1T according to this source in fiscal year 2018: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-... This website states in 2018, the federal government spent $582B on Medicare, and $389B on Medicaid, plus all the tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance and ACA subsidies to individual buyers, etc. https://www.the…

That's because of private healthcare that prevent them from properly negotiating prices. If universal healthcare was a thing these costs would be much lower.

How is that?

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#145

Post by QuixoticQuibit »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #144
ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because of private healthcare that prevent them from properly negotiating prices. If universal healthcare was a thing these costs would be much lower.

How is that?

Nation-sized leverage. The same reason why equivalent pharmaceuticals are cheaper elsewhere in the world.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#146

Post by PaulAJ »

perl4ever wrote: post #106
sandworm101 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When Obamacare was going through I read in The Economist that about 1/3 of Americans had their health care paid for by Uncle Sam. The schemes were Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, and health schemes for government employees.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#147

Post by PaulAJ »

sandworm101 wrote: post #130
perl4ever wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or-miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime." That's a general complaint that has nothing to do with insurance being a cost you pay out of your take-home salary in the US. Your anecdote seemed to be predicated on an accounting difference between the US and Canada, that the Chin…

I never said my friend had a job. Part of the problem, in the US, is the link between employment and insurance. My friend earned reasonable money as a moderately-sucessful artist but did not have an employer. In the US that would mean paying out of pocket. In canada he didn't have to pay a dime.

Also the self-employed in the USA have to pay over the odds for rubbish schemes. Large employers can be assumed to employ mostly healthy people, but an individual is more likely to want health insurance if they already know they are a bad risk. This "moral hazard" means that selling health insurance to the self-employed is a money-losing proposition unless you screw them at every opportunity.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#148

Post by barry-cotter »

QuixoticQuibit wrote: post #145
AdrianB1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that?

Nation-sized leverage. The same reason why equivalent pharmaceuticals are cheaper elsewhere in the world.

Quite. That’s why the US pays for more pharmaceutical and medical device R&D than anyone else. The US is where every pharmaceutical company makes the profits that incentivize further drug development.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#149

Post by PaulAJ »

newacct583 wrote: post #77
rayiner wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're quoting nominal rates and not effective taxation. The very wealthy don't pay their "marginal dollar" in "income tax" at a 37% federal bracket (plus state), they pay it in capital gains tax at 20%. If they pay it at all, given that in fact much income at these levels is sheltered from tax entirely via international tricks. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how the very wealthy in the US pay less effe…

Anyone who thinks that it would be easy to raise government revenues by taxing the wealthy should read "Moneyland" by Oliver Bullough.

Anyone who thinks that low tax rates on wealthy people isn't a problem should also read "Moneyland" by Oliver Bullough.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#150

Post by fastball »

c3534l wrote: post #127
ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #40

Genuine question: what is the point made in the post? I feel like I'm missing something.

My guess is its one of those style over substance articles, like something by David Sedaris. Not really something we're used to on hackernews where we expect the author to argue X is bad, or we need more Y. The point is entertainment or poetry. Maybe I'm wrong and the author wants to achieve some rhetorical goal, but I think its just a blog post for the sake of it.

Do you personally find it compelling in a stylistic sense? If I was going to judge the quality of this writing, I don't think I could rate it much higher than "mediocre".

Obviously this is my own opinion, but I don't find this compelling in terms of style or substance. Honestly it comes across as more of a rant.

Post reply on HN