A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy • Hacker News Board

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#41

Post by ghouse » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:09 AM UTC

nhangen wrote: post #9

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…

I'm with you. Until the federal gov can prove it is willing to even attempt a balanced budget, is willing to stop giving handouts (to both the wealthy and the lazy), and proves it will actually invest in something other than bad cars and banks, then there's no reason they should get anything more than they already do. If you keep feeding a monster, all you get is a bigger monster.

Your argument assumes that people making spending decisions care about the debt. 30 years of government run by both sides of the aisle demonstrate that revenue and expenditures are entirely decoupled.

Whether you feed or don't feed the monster doesn't impact the monster's size. If you stop funding government, all you get is a larger debt.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#42

Post by rpm4321 » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:09 AM UTC

sami36 wrote: post #27

rpm4321 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they are sitting on these piles of money rather than investing it? It's because of the incessant sabre-rattling from the left over the past six years about raising taxes and ramping up even more regulation. It has a chilling effect.

oh Please. What a silly excuse. How about they've cut back on investing because they've been bitten twice in the span of one decade by two bubbles (one in housing, one in tech) & they figured out it's better to be more discriminating about capital allocation. simply stated when given a choice between wealth destruction & capital preservation, the latter is more desirable. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe…

Just to be clear, I'm mostly talking about companies drastically scaling back their plans for growth in recent years, which obviously impacts private investors in the equity markets as well. Countless CEOs have gone on the record saying they've postponed hiring and capital investments because of the current tax and regulatory environment, in addition to the general dysfunction of Washington.

As you point out, Apple is sitting on over 100 billion, and countless other companies are sitting on amounts of capital that were previously unheard of. You can't honestly argue that it's a coincidence that all of these companies are simultaneously gun-shy to invest in growth.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#43

Post by mitchty » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:11 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #34

mitchty wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I was referring more to their referendum system.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#44

Post by r00fus » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:13 AM UTC

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…

> With the threshold at $250k, the tax hikes would still only bring in enough added revenue to cover 8 days of federal spending.

Does that include the restoration of pre-Bush capital gains tax? Because I'm sure that would add up to a lot. In fact, I think that's the biggest thing that the ultra-rich have become addicted to in the past decade.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#45

Post by hackinthebochs » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:14 AM UTC

forensic wrote: post #25

rpm4321 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they are sitting on these piles of money rather than investing it? It's because of the incessant sabre-rattling from the left over the past six years about raising taxes and ramping up even more regulation. It has a chilling effect.

you know what's chilly? the blade of the guillotine. you can either share some of your money or lose all of it.

It's funny how quickly people forget. There is one inevitable end result of such severe disproportionate concentrations of wealth. I'm sure we're nowhere near that point yet, but those who argue against redistribution are guaranteeing we will get there at some point.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#46

Post by r00fus » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:16 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #2

> Our government’s goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P Makes sense, but only after you've paid off all or the vast majority of your debt, which means for a decade or two you'll need to have the income be significantly higher than spending, and pay off the debt with the difference.

Yeah, back before Bush's looting of the US treasury for his rich pals, we had budget surpluses. In fact, it might have been possible that we would now have paid off the debt if Bush never took office.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#47

Post by hackinthebochs » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:17 AM UTC

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?'

What is "property" other than a state-enforced claim to ownership? If the state (read: society) decides to take some back it is well within its "right" to do so, as your only claim to property is based on decree of society.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#48

Post by gwright » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:17 AM UTC

ianb wrote: post #24

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…

This response has become the standard (non sequitur) response to proposals for progressive taxation, but it doesn't engage at all with the argument being made. The degree to which taxes are progressive doesn't determine the total tax collected, or the amount the government expends, it determines how that burden is applied to people. What we should really be comparing is: does an individual allocate their first $100,0…

Why are you framing the argument as if incomes are something that are owned by the government instead of the person who earned the money?

The notion that taxation should be predicated on whether the government or the person can 'better use' the person's money is damn scary.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#49

Post by rpm4321 » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:18 AM UTC

forensic wrote: post #25

rpm4321 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they are sitting on these piles of money rather than investing it? It's because of the incessant sabre-rattling from the left over the past six years about raising taxes and ramping up even more regulation. It has a chilling effect.

you know what's chilly? the blade of the guillotine. you can either share some of your money or lose all of it.

I really wish that I had joined HN more than a month ago, just so that I could downvote you. This belongs on Reddit or Huffpo, not HN.

Ironically, it's this sort of OWS mullarkey that's helping to prolong the environment of economic uncertainty that's hurting us so badly today.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#50

Post by forensic » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:18 AM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #36

forensic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe some private charities do benefit the disadvantaged. But that doesn't mean those private charities work for the disadvantaged.

Who is the customer of a private charity? Who is the product of a private charity?