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

A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#31

Post by chasing »

nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

"Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient allocators, because they are decision makers with a vested interest in the outcome. This concept is so rare as to practically not exist in the public sector."

What a shitty, smug attitude to have towards the many very bright and motivated people who work in the public sector. They're not all perfect, but neither are all entrepreneurs. Not by a long shot.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#32

Post by sami36 »

nhebb wrote: post #21

> I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so. Personally, I don't care if the wealthy pay higher taxes. In the recent election, 8/10 of the wealthiest counties in the US voted for President Obama, and his stance on tax rates was clear. If those voters are willing to pay higher taxes, I'm…

Or you could pursue a balanced approach. Raise taxes on the wealthy, a little bit & cut intelligently across all programs. The defense budget is bloated, SS could be means tested, Medicare must be both means-tested & some of the benefits curtailed.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#34

Post by charonn0 »

mitchty wrote: post #10
nhangen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives the government the right to 'take it away from them?'

They have the guns normally. Force tends to be its own right. That said, Californians complaining about government isn't surprising, they have the worst possible state government of the union. Their bias is understandable, but entirely their own doing.

they have the worst possible state government of the union

Must be all the rich people that live here; they ruin everything!

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#35

Post by ruby_on_rails »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #19
nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

>Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. This is baseless dogma. Government may not always be the most efficient allocator, but it's not always the least efficient either. In cases of positive and negative externalities, the market does not allocate ideally. We need to move past this dogma of "All government is bad government" so that we can separate the good from the bad. Good rules are helpful. Ba…

I think what nugget is getting at, is there are many government programs that are mismanaged (welfare, social security, education to some extent, and others). Who legitimately feels good that they pay taxes only to see other Americans living off of Welfare, generations unemployed, living off of welfare (which btw, I consider to be fraud). People that live on welfare (no, not people who use the program as it was intended, as temporary help), don't pay taxes and the benefit from those of us that do pay taxes.

When confronted with situations like the one described above, any rational person would wonder why we want higher taxes, when we should really be focusing on reforming our broken social programs. Only then, when we take legitimate steps to reform our broken social programs, should we be considering higher taxes.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#36

Post by prostoalex »

forensic wrote: post #29
prostoalex wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Government is the only entity that works for the interest of the disadvantaged. oh rly? http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_stat...

If you think private charity works for the disadvantaged, you are confusing the customer with the product.

Mmm, can you elaborate?

Like Red Cross or local church's soup kitchen, how does their activity not benefit the disadvantaged?

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#37

Post by gwright »

brianchu wrote: post #17
nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

Where did you get the idea that "the many billions raised for 'education' went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund?" (emphasis added) As far as I'm aware, the majority of the money went to prevent spending cuts in education budgets, and the rest went into the general budget ( http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm ). Hyperbole is not necessary to make your point.

It is a mistake to try to analyze spending in this way.

Dollars are fungible. Dollars directed to one particular budget item (education budgets in your example) simply frees up other dollars to be used elsewhere (pensions and benefits in the parent comment).

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#38

Post by swerling »

nhangen wrote: post #7
ballstothewalls wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources? Says who? How many wealthy individuals are sitting on piles of money right now because they are unsure of the economic climate and therefore are not going to invest? Who better than the government to take it away from them and then invest it into public infrastructure and consequently stimulate the economy?

What gives the government the right to 'take it away from them?'

That would be the sixteenth amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#39

Post by ghouse »

If small government advocates really wanted a broad base of support, they'd insist that tax rates always cover government expenditures. Then people would be upset about big government.

However, the current attack against raising taxes (from their current historically low rates) only raises the debt and weakens our fiscal foundation.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#40

Post by anigbrowl »

This thread is a sad example of why articles on politics are discouraged on HN. None of the comments engage substantively with the article and most consist of unsupported assertions, as well as failing at staatistics.
Post reply on HN