How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#51

Post by nobodyandproud » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:02 PM UTC

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #2

As a side note: One of the primary reasons of how the rich get richer and how public services (our society) degrade is, that we stopped taxing them. For decades now. Imho, its a shift of the represented interests in policies. We should stop pondering enshitification or greedflation an start seeing it as a systemic issue, that we can observe everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Commodification#In_Marxist_th...

Most of us here know, but note that the slights of hand are just too good.

They can also hire people to shill in every major forum, so there’s a huge uphill battle just to avoid getting drowned out.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#52

Post by zo1 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:02 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #33

koolba wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept. It’s no better than saying “ the rich are not paying their fair share ”. Say you’re settling the tab for big dinner at a restaurant, if your rich friend pays for the steak he ordered, is that his fair share? If there’s 100 of you and he pays for 1/100 of the check, is that his fair share? What if he pays for half the tab, is that enough…

For a single person, you'll hit that tax bracket after more than $500,000 in income. This is an absolutely enormous amount of money - roughly 10x the median income. I have absolutely zero problem with income beyond this amount being taxed at 50%. I make around $600,000. My effective federal tax rate is in the low-mid 20s. I'd have to make way way way more money for my effective federal + state rates to approach 50%.

What about sales tax, VAT, fuel levies, consumption taxes, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Your state or country may not have all of the above. But they are all there to tax you to ridiculous amounts but not at the "start". Same goes for withholding or "Pay as you earn" taxes which serve to not let you see how much taxes you are paying.

No one will be happy if more than half their labour is taken from then. We can talk feel good and helping the community and needy all you want, but once you cross that threshold it will be very obvious to a lot of people that they have no choice in the matter and that it's a few steps away from slavery.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#53

Post by brigadier132 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:04 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #50

brigadier132 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually give examples of competent public spending? The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering. On any given night 4000 people are sleeping on San Francisco's streets and the government can't solve that with a $636 million a year budget? The US spends more per student than any other nation and somehow we have worse educational outcomes?

Think about how important roads are to just about every facet of keeping the country running. I also think the relevant question here is “compared to what?”. The built in assumption is that the public sector is extremely wasteful compared to private but large private companies are also extraordinarily wasteful. Think of the amount of money Meta pisses away every year on frivolous stuff that goes nowhere.

Our roads suck and they were created 100 years ago. Can we talk about effective use of government money from the past half century at least? And can we at least show a pattern of competency rather than a pattern of waste?

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#54

Post by willcipriano » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:05 PM UTC

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #14

willcipriano wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you know the last successful, citizen-only driven revolution? I would guess the french revolution ~1790 and it was a bloodbath. Today, the military technology has extended the power gap so much, that chopping heads off is no option for eg. north koreans without support from the outside. I think a violent revolution would only tighten the surveilance state.

The ven diagram of people who tell me that we can't possibly overthrow the government contrasted with people who say January 6th was a threat to democracy is essentially a circle.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#55

Post by zo1 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:05 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #30

koolba wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept. It’s no better than saying “ the rich are not paying their fair share ”. Say you’re settling the tab for big dinner at a restaurant, if your rich friend pays for the steak he ordered, is that his fair share? If there’s 100 of you and he pays for 1/100 of the check, is that his fair share? What if he pays for half the tab, is that enough…

Rich friends used to settle the whole tab , no questions asked. Generosity was a value . A rich friend arguing over the details of a tab is just an asshole.

Not just rich friends, some cultures have a big thing for paying for your friends as a celebratory act. You take turns though after many years which averages out anyways though. It helps those in temporary bad times, too.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#56

Post by polygamous_bat » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:05 PM UTC

taxinaut wrote: post #37

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept. I disagree. There are models of economics that can project taxation rates that will have better outcomes for society. It's far from being primarily subjective.

That’s just you defining reasonable though. Others (few) would say any taxation at all is unreasonable. Still others (plenty more) would say taxes should apply at the same rate to all people to be reasonable. You’re saying “taxes should have a good societal outcome to be reasonable”. Yours is the best in my opinion but it’s still subjective.

> Others (few) would say any taxation at all is unreasonable.

Some people in society (possibly because of unfortunate mental health issues) like to stand in the streets and fling shit at others. We do not argue over the subjective reasonableness of shit-flinging, because as a civil society we are far past that point.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#57

Post by HWR_14 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:06 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #9

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US people have been brainwashed to think reasonable taxation is 'socialism' - something they need to have a religious objection to even if they don't know what it is.

There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept. It’s no better than saying “ the rich are not paying their fair share ”. Say you’re settling the tab for big dinner at a restaurant, if your rich friend pays for the steak he ordered, is that his fair share? If there’s 100 of you and he pays for 1/100 of the check, is that his fair share? What if he pays for half the tab, is that enough…

I get that 50% is a nice round number, but what's the moral or reasonable significance of that?

Meanwhile, you're looking at top marginal rates. That's not the total rate. A single person making $500k a year has a total tax rate (federal plus state) of 41%. It gots up to 46% at $1,000,000/yr.

And the rate goes down if they marry, have kids, etc.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#58

Post by afavour » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:07 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #53

afavour wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about how important roads are to just about every facet of keeping the country running. I also think the relevant question here is “compared to what?”. The built in assumption is that the public sector is extremely wasteful compared to private but large private companies are also extraordinarily wasteful. Think of the amount of money Meta pisses away every year on frivolous stuff that goes nowhere.

Our roads suck and they were created 100 years ago. Can we talk about effective use of government money from the past half century at least? And can we at least show a pattern of competency rather than a pattern of waste?

You’re obviously coming into this discussion with a pre-existing viewpoint and have no actual interest in hearing alternatives.

Why does it matter when roads were created? They require near constant maintenance, something public funds do. And “our roads suck” is just an absurd generalisation and is obviously not true. Of course parts of the road system suck but it’s an integral part of keeping the country running and by and large works fine.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#59

Post by zo1 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:08 PM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #24

Private foundations are really a massive scam on the public purse so whenever you hear about the Gates Foundation and the like, remember it's just a tax dodge, nothing more. The way the rules work, a private foundation has to spend 5% of its capital on its intended purpose. Thing is, that 5% can include "administration" costs like paying salaries and benefits for the family. They really need to raise this to 10%, min…

Can someone explain how that charity foundation thing is a loophole? Who/what is avoiding taxes?

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#60

Post by afavour » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:09 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #49

dhbradshaw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libraries, roads, firefighters, police, utilities, national parks, local parks.

Taxes don't pay for utilities, I can't personally use libraries anymore because they've become defacto homeless shelters, the police suck. So now we are left with firefighters, national parks and local parks which I guess are not good targets for power hungry and incompetent politicians.

> I can't personally use libraries anymore because they've become defacto homeless shelters

I’m sorry, I can’t take any of this seriously. I use my neighbourhood library regularly, take my kids there, it’s a wonderful place. I’m sorry you’ve had bad experiences (have you? Or did you just read online that libraries are full of homeless people?) but don’t extrapolate your experience out to a universal one.