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

FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#81

Post by netcan »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #78
netcan wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 more questions: * Are there Americans that feel education should not be a public service? * Are you saying that healthcare is seen as a public responsibility but not one that needs to be delivered by 'Government?'

By use of the phrase "public service" I think your question misses the point. Education was considered a national necessity as part of our ability to fight wars (once again, as I was told, it gets more complicated) City governments pick up the trash as a service. Services are optional, nice-to-have things. Education was deemed a requirement, and local schools were left to handle that in any way they wanted (until rel…

I'm not sure that it was a misunderstanding. I'm trying to get a better idea of what you were trying to represent. I think I have.

I meant, do you consider that there are things that are a public responsibility, things a society owes to its individual members, that are not The Governments place to provide?

I think you answered no. These things should be personal not public.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#82

Post by DanielBMarkham »

netcan wrote: post #81
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By use of the phrase "public service" I think your question misses the point. Education was considered a national necessity as part of our ability to fight wars (once again, as I was told, it gets more complicated) City governments pick up the trash as a service. Services are optional, nice-to-have things. Education was deemed a requirement, and local schools were left to handle that in any way they wanted (until rel…

I'm not sure that it was a misunderstanding. I'm trying to get a better idea of what you were trying to represent. I think I have. I meant, do you consider that there are things that are a public responsibility, things a society owes to its individual members, that are not The Governments place to provide? I think you answered no. These things should be personal not public.

Yes.

In a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious secular environment, personal mores and values should extend quite a ways from the minimum amount that we can all agree on. Traditionally communities have addressed moral issues through the use of volunteer-based civic groups.

I like this idea because the majority is not forcing it's definition of morality onto the minority. It also does not involve going to a local or national politician to make a moral case why charity money should be spent one way or another. It does not promote "one size fits all" solutions that are supposed to be applicable in wildly varying conditions. In addition, it seems that politicians can get elected simply on the moral persuasion of their arguments instead of their practicality, which is leading us to make promises we can never afford to pay for.

I'm for doing something about healthcare, for instance, because I think the buying and selling of health services is not happening in anything like a free market. Most people don't have anything to do with the cost of healthcare (other than paying insurance premiums), and there is virtually no shopping around for services. So the buyer doesn't use his own money, there is no open pricing, and there is no competition on price or quality. In addition, if a company developed a pill that cost a million dollars but let you live to be 150? It's obvious that there are multiple, legitimate players involved that each should have an equal say.

So please don't take my response as "there's nothing wrong." It's broken, but not everything that is broken needs an immediate, rubber-stamp solution. We work best in complicated environments by setting goals, iterating, re-factoring, trying different solutions -- all things that centralized solutions do not offer.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#83

Post by mattmaroon »

netcan wrote: post #80
mattmaroon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even in the case of rape, practical grounds matter. If making it illegal didn't decrease the amount of rapes but increased violence and furthered the profits of organized crime families, why would one make it illegal? You'd simply have to attack the problem from another angle, as we should be doing (but aren't) with drugs. Of course there are gray areas. What if rape laws decreased rape by 10%, but increased…

I think even in the case of rape, practical grounds matter. People disagree with you instinctively. It seems that we have Deontological tendencies by nature. Mostly people do not find utilitarian arguments compelling. You have to weight the scales very far in favour of utility before people will violate a principle. the dry communities It's an extreme case. These are mostly very small very isolated (like 2 days drive…

Yeah, I instinctively disagree with the rape issue too. In fact, I wrote that, thought about it, and deleted it.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#84

Post by mattmaroon »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #79
mattmaroon wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, here's a great summary by Krugman: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_kru... Explains why capital gains is largely just a loophole in the tax code exploited by the uber-rich. Also, if you dig around through public data, you find that the top 10% of Americans make about 70% of the income and pay about 70% of the personal taxes. Sounds fair right? However, the top 1% make about 47% and pay o…

Seems like that assumes that the top one percent or so are some kind of trapped citizenry. Wouldn't they just move assets/gains/themselves offshore? Seems like if anybody had the ability to change their life parameters to avoid taxes, it would be the uber-wealthy. By taxing capital gains, you hit the millionaire store-keeper who sold his shop and is now retired living on investments, the startup guys just cashing out…

It sounds like you're describing the illegal hiding of money, which I'm sure does happen. But I would think that most wealthy people would rather not risk going to jail, and I do know that you cannot just move overseas to get out of taxes. You can renounce your US citizenship, but they can actually deny that if they think you're doing it to save taxes.

But beyond that vague, general knowledge I certainly don't know much about ways the ultra-wealthy evade taxes. I do know that they didn't have the gaping capital gains loophole until now, and as far as I know they didn't all move to other countries.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#85

Post by DanielBMarkham »

mattmaroon wrote: post #84
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like that assumes that the top one percent or so are some kind of trapped citizenry. Wouldn't they just move assets/gains/themselves offshore? Seems like if anybody had the ability to change their life parameters to avoid taxes, it would be the uber-wealthy. By taxing capital gains, you hit the millionaire store-keeper who sold his shop and is now retired living on investments, the startup guys just cashing out…

It sounds like you're describing the illegal hiding of money, which I'm sure does happen. But I would think that most wealthy people would rather not risk going to jail, and I do know that you cannot just move overseas to get out of taxes. You can renounce your US citizenship, but they can actually deny that if they think you're doing it to save taxes. But beyond that vague, general knowledge I certainly don't know m…

Then I believe you are saying "we gotcha", right? Or in other words we have a disagreement. My thesis is that the uber rich will generally find a way to avoid (not evade) taxes and I believe your position is that it is impossible/unlikely because we will catch/punish them.

I would refer you to prohibition. It seems to me that at some point people will not willingly agree to ten times the taxes for the same amount of representation. Tax evasion is illegal, as we all know. But tax avoidance -- finding loopholes in the law -- is an American tradition. Think I could find as many loopholes with my 10K as somebody else could with their 10 mil? I kind of doubt it.

I note that the income tax was passed in 1913 in the U.S. I think it was really low -- something like 6% on income over 200K. The very next year, the tax was raised to 85% on the wealthy as a way to finance WWI.

Now practically speaking, do you think that all wealthy people actually paid 85% taxes? Just from a intuitive standpoint, doesn't it seem like this would sack the people at the low end of the wealth scale -- those without tax attorneys and multiple streams of revenue and corporate aliases -- not the truly rich, who saw the law coming and already found ways to protect their investments?

I'm not a tax law specialist so I can't comment on specifics. But intuitively it seems like most people would act in their own self-interest. And it seems that the truly rich have many more options than most folks do. So as a general rule of thumb, I would think that at some point you are going to lose money by raising taxes.

Just intuition, mind you. Lots of room for disagreement here.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#86

Post by mattmaroon »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #85
mattmaroon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're describing the illegal hiding of money, which I'm sure does happen. But I would think that most wealthy people would rather not risk going to jail, and I do know that you cannot just move overseas to get out of taxes. You can renounce your US citizenship, but they can actually deny that if they think you're doing it to save taxes. But beyond that vague, general knowledge I certainly don't know m…

Then I believe you are saying "we gotcha", right? Or in other words we have a disagreement. My thesis is that the uber rich will generally find a way to avoid (not evade) taxes and I believe your position is that it is impossible/unlikely because we will catch/punish them. I would refer you to prohibition. It seems to me that at some point people will not willingly agree to ten times the taxes for the same amount of…

I don't think anyone would suggest raising it that much. I just want to get rid of the concept of capital gains entirely, so it would then be taxed at the personal income rate (up to 35%ish now). Or maybe not get rid of it entirely, so as to help the middle class save/invest, but do tiers.

There's a big difference between loopholes and tax evasion obviously, and the alternative minimum tax largely closes loopholes. (The AMT currently has its own problems, but is a step in the right direction.)

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#87

Post by netcan »

mattmaroon wrote: post #83
netcan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even in the case of rape, practical grounds matter. People disagree with you instinctively. It seems that we have Deontological tendencies by nature. Mostly people do not find utilitarian arguments compelling. You have to weight the scales very far in favour of utility before people will violate a principle. the dry communities It's an extreme case. These are mostly very small very isolated (like 2 days drive…

Yeah, I instinctively disagree with the rape issue too. In fact, I wrote that, thought about it, and deleted it.

This is an area with some experiments actually. Peter Sinegr seems to be involved in a lot of them. He's a famous(ish) utilitarian. Considered pretty extreme. Actually, you can almost use his moral prescriptions as a what happens when you take your above reasoning to the extreme.

Anyway, most people are instinctive deontologists. From the above link:

"the minority of subjects who did consider that it would be right to push the stranger off the footbridge {Right from a utilitarian/net-good perspective} took longer to reach their judgment, and had more activity in the parts of their brains associated with cognitive activity, than those who said that it would be wrong to push the stranger off the footbridge{Right from a deontological perspecitve}"

You seem to be a good example. Instinctively/emotionally a deontologist, rationally a utilitarian. A torn man. (;

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#88

Post by mattmaroon »

netcan wrote: post #87
mattmaroon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I instinctively disagree with the rape issue too. In fact, I wrote that, thought about it, and deleted it.

This is an area with some experiments actually. Peter Sinegr seems to be involved in a lot of them. He's a famous(ish) utilitarian. Considered pretty extreme. Actually, you can almost use his moral prescriptions as a what happens when you take your above reasoning to the extreme. Anyway, most people are instinctive deontologists. From the above link: "the minority of subjects who did consider that it would be right t…

I bet everyone is that way instinctively, just some of us think enough to overcome it, for better or for worse.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#89

Post by netcan »

mattmaroon wrote: post #88
netcan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an area with some experiments actually. Peter Sinegr seems to be involved in a lot of them. He's a famous(ish) utilitarian. Considered pretty extreme. Actually, you can almost use his moral prescriptions as a what happens when you take your above reasoning to the extreme. Anyway, most people are instinctive deontologists. From the above link: "the minority of subjects who did consider that it would be right t…

I bet everyone is that way instinctively, just some of us think enough to overcome it, for better or for worse.

Most of us are remarkably similar regardless of race, religion, nationality, education etc. are like that.

I think that those who go with a utilitarian approach think harder about the decision, but that might be just because it makes the decision harder. You need to work out consequences. It's a stretch to say it makes it smarter.

But when you get right down to the root of your stack of 'whys,' you generally hit a principle at some stage. When your trying to rationalise morals, that is. Even Bentham the old time 'extremist' utilitarian had 'the principle of equal consideration.'

Your Constitution & other fundamental documents that you sited earlier are essentially principals (held to be self evident, no?). If you are going to try & rationalise your ethics, most strategies can be deciding on what level to define you principles, define them somehow then apply. Most people instinctively do it at the same sort of level as the law. Some mostly pretty bookish characters go to a slightly higher level.

In that respect, the US founding documents (which I am always surprised to hear quoted & treated in the way that they are) conform to that. Confucius as an example goes to a slightly lower level.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#90

Post by walterk »

mattmaroon wrote: post #74
walterk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somebody else's sickness has no effect on me in most cases. And in the ones in which it does, the CDC is there to help. Nobody would suggest that the government doesn't play an important role in protecting against epidemics, which is most analogous to your fire metaphor. In most cases, someone else's fire has no (direct) effect on you either, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that assertion is. Nor am I talking…

If we didn't have fire departments, other people's fires would have direct effects on me. Hell, every time someone drops a cigarette in California hundreds lose their homes. That's not true of health insurance. Tort reform and caps on payouts for malpractice suits are necessary. Every time someone wins a $50m suit because a doctor accidentally amputated their pinky, the costs are passed back onto the rest of us. I'm…

I've been talking about indirect effects. Direct effects are what you injected into the conversation by way of talking about epidemics. You are indeed indirectly affected by the poor state of health care in this nation as a result of the lost economic productivity, and any cultural decline that can ensue. My analogy to fire control is simply to point out that we are affected by the well being of others.

Tort reform is a solution to a completely different problem than what I've been talking about, so again, I fail to see the relevance.

We clearly disagree on what would improve the public health, and our disagreement clearly stems from ideological differences which haven't surfaced here. That's fine, but nothing that we've been doing amounts to an actual debate over the issue in question.

Post reply on HN