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

In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

laphamsquarterly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#71

Post by HideousKojima »

AstralStorm wrote: post #62
HideousKojima wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somalia has taxes in the form of warlords taking whatever they want. And Somalia is always trotted out as an example of Anarchy (or more uncharitably as an example of Libertarianism) by people ignorant of its history, often willfully so. Somalia is just another failed Socialist state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Revolutionary_Sociali...

By failed you mean the government was couped, right? And it being called socialist is a bit of a funny thing, with encouraging private investment and high degree of authoritarianism, even totalitarianism. This is not the same thing at all.

>And it being called socialist is a bit of a funny thing, with encouraging private investment and high degree of authoritarianism, even totalitarianism.

Yes, like every other failed Socialist and Communist state, they made promises of economic inequality and instead becane authoritarian genocidal maniacs.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#72

Post by frankbreetz »

kortilla wrote: post #67
frankbreetz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was as passionate about it as the parent, I would. For me, there are other factors to where I live besides taxes. Also, it's hard migrate to countries with high taxes, because they are deseriable places to live. It's not hard to migrate to Somalia. It's also not deseriable to live there. That's the point.

They are trivial to relocate to if you have money and would be the one actually paying the high taxes (top half of middle-class income and above). There is a reason people making 6 figure+ salaries aren’t clamoring to move to France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden. They aren’t actually all that desirable if you are the one paying the brunt of the taxes. If you’re actually “passionate about taxes” and you don’t make good money…

Are there more rich people in Somalia or "France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden". It's almost like everyone including rich people benefit from a society where government is properly funded. It's also seems properly funded governments generate more capable people(see incomes over 6 fig).

Obviously you can over-do it, but parent compared taxes to protection money from the mafia and that is ridiculous.

Also people who are “passionate about taxes” think that rich people benefit more from a properly funded society then more poor people, so they should pay more. So as the parent says "what a stupid argument" Also, of course we are my passionate about high taxes. We are passionate about the society that high taxes provide.

All of your arguments seen quite disengenious.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#73

Post by newacct583 »

sokoloff wrote: post #66
newacct583 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Income tax is significantly higher than capital gains, and that clearly contradicts the contention that we preferentially tax things we hate." Do you actually disagree with that statement? If the essence of the argument doesn't change, why argue with numbers in the first place?

The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. The first half of the statement is also not obviously true to me, given the large amount of wage income that is federally marginally taxed at 22 or 24% and the large amount of long-term capital gains that are taxed at 23.8%. Is some wage income taxed higher than some investment income? Obviously, yes. Is…

> The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true.

OMG. I was paraphrasing YOUR COMMENT! Precisely because it's irrefutable nonsense.

[And the fact that you came back after nine hours to edit your comment to make it look like you had more to say is just... ]

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#74

Post by epgui »

FredPret wrote: post #34
epgui wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are things that everyone want, they don't really distinguish those who complain about taxes from those who don't. I'd propose, simplistically, that people who demand tax cuts have in common the following characteristics: - they may be confused about the role(s) of taxation - they may not have sat down with pen and paper to try and figure out how to work a government's finances - they may not be aware that a lot…

So the only possible position for an informed, intelligent person is “higher taxes”? Let’s go for broke and make them 100% then?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting.

What I'm saying is that when applying first-order thinking, it sounds like "more tax" would hurt. Therefore people who ask for more tax are most likely thinking a bit farther than the tip of their nose.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#75

Post by epgui »

kortilla wrote: post #43
epgui wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are things that everyone want, they don't really distinguish those who complain about taxes from those who don't. I'd propose, simplistically, that people who demand tax cuts have in common the following characteristics: - they may be confused about the role(s) of taxation - they may not have sat down with pen and paper to try and figure out how to work a government's finances - they may not be aware that a lot…

> Conversely, it is highly probable that the people who support tax hikes: There is no evidence supporting this assertion. A massive swath of people currently support raising taxes on the wealthy solely to take their money away (“reducing income equality”) without having a particularly sound way to spend it or one that even makes mathematical sense. https://twitter.com/iamscottenglish/status/12358062448179159...

Income inequality is a destabilizing force. One of the purposes of taxation is wealth redistribution, and that can be "mathematically" quite useful if you like your system to have an equilibrium state.

There's a way to look at this non-vindictively.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#76

Post by sokoloff »

newacct583 wrote: post #73
sokoloff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. The first half of the statement is also not obviously true to me, given the large amount of wage income that is federally marginally taxed at 22 or 24% and the large amount of long-term capital gains that are taxed at 23.8%. Is some wage income taxed higher than some investment income? Obviously, yes. Is…

> The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. OMG. I was paraphrasing YOUR COMMENT! Precisely because it's irrefutable nonsense. [And the fact that you came back after nine hours to edit your comment to make it look like you had more to say is just... ]

The edit window for comments on HN is 2 hours, so I most certainly and provably did not do the thing you have accused me of doing.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#77

Post by FredPret »

epgui wrote: post #74
FredPret wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the only possible position for an informed, intelligent person is “higher taxes”? Let’s go for broke and make them 100% then?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that when applying first-order thinking, it sounds like "more tax" would hurt. Therefore people who ask for more tax are most likely thinking a bit farther than the tip of their nose.

On behalf of all us low-tax simpletons, I must ask if you have considered that there might be undesirable second-order effects of high tax rates.

But perhaps that idea is further than the tip of one’s nose.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#78

Post by kortilla »

frankbreetz wrote: post #72
kortilla wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are trivial to relocate to if you have money and would be the one actually paying the high taxes (top half of middle-class income and above). There is a reason people making 6 figure+ salaries aren’t clamoring to move to France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden. They aren’t actually all that desirable if you are the one paying the brunt of the taxes. If you’re actually “passionate about taxes” and you don’t make good money…

Are there more rich people in Somalia or "France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden". It's almost like everyone including rich people benefit from a society where government is properly funded. It's also seems properly funded governments generate more capable people(see incomes over 6 fig). Obviously you can over-do it, but parent compared taxes to protection money from the mafia and that is ridiculous. Also people who are “pass…

> Are there more rich people in Somalia or "France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden".

Are there more rich people in the US or those countries?

> It's almost like everyone including rich people benefit from a society where government is properly funded. It's also seems properly funded governments generate more capable people(see incomes over 6 fig).

It’s almost like the high taxation levels of France/Sweden/Portugal/etc have no advantage over the US for “everyone benefitting”, at least not monetarily.

> All of your arguments seen quite disengenious.

I don’t think you’re using that word correctly or you’re not understanding. I’m being quite genuine when I say it’s ridiculous to “be a fan of taxation” and when most people say that they are just generally a fan of some level of government services.

You need to discuss which government services you like socialized to have any meaningful discussion. Otherwise it’s just “I love the government taking money from the people”.

Re: In the Beginning, There Were Taxes

#79

Post by 4rtyui9xd »

analog31 wrote: post #42
4rtyui9xd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the wealthy need the government's services, financed through taxes, as much as "the average person". What if a US citizen obtainins citizenship in a country that does not tax non-residents, relinquishes her US citizenship and then moves to a country that has little or no taxes.

Yes, even moreso than the rest of us. The wealthy need things like corporate and financial regulation, the tort system, and other economic infrastructure that the poor aren't even aware of. If the hypothetical wealthy citizen moves to a country without functioning government infrastructure, it's a safe bet that their first priority upon landing will be to figure out a way to move their assets into instruments that ar…

"Yes, even moreso than the rest of us."

But, generally, the wealthy do not pay more in taxes than the non-wealthy. They generally pay less.

Post reply on HN