61–70 of 149 posts
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.
Is it possible for non-investors (i.e. small business owners) to avoid taxes using strategies like a "Cayman Islands mail drop"? If so, I propose this HACK to solve the tax issue: Create a site that disseminates information on how small businesses can avoid (not evade ) taxes using these approaches that are typically only known to advanced acolytes. Evolve processes that significantly reduces the cost for avoiding ta…
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?
It's very difficult to be "sitting on piles of money" in the way you imply unless you've literally perched yourself atop a chair constructed from stacks of US dollar bills. When a millionaire earns an extra million dollars, he or she puts it somewhere - into stocks, or bonds, or other investments, and sometimes, rarely, keeps it in a bank account for years on end where it sits and earns no interest. With the exceptio…
If Mr. Buffet is so concerned about the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy he should use this simple form ( https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFor... ) to set an example.
This is an absurd (yet common) response. And if you are for a war, why don't you buy a gun and go fight?
> 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.
The idea of taxing investment income leads to a lot of terrible, perverse outcomes. It steers wealth towards being locked up in big companies and funds, since this is how you compound investment fashion without that money being repeatedly taxed. It also makes sure the incentive to invest on one's own accord belongs primarily to capitalists, since the tax naturally compounds when you buy and sell on your own account. Non-capitalists must allocate their money in one of a handful of government-approved fashions, or be eaten by repeated capital gains taxes for things as simple as rebalancing.
Capital gains taxes seem motivated by a broad desire to soak the rich, but you will find very few economists on the left (or the right) supporting this idea over alternatives like a progressive consumption tax. Capital gains taxes are one more example of a clueless "progressive" idea leading to outcomes that are poor to both progressive and non-progressive perspectives.
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 only work for human beings with money. Who works for those without? It doesn't matter how inefficient government is. Government is the only entity that works for the disadvantaged. Government is also the only entity capable of addressing collective problems.
When I'm doing volunteer work, I'm working for the interest of the disadvantaged. My synagogue collectively works for the interest of the disadvantaged through their social action programs. My town's interfaith food bank is run very well and addresses a collective problem without taking a dime of government support.
Government plays a role in helping the disadvantaged but it doesn't play the only role, it's not necessarily the most effective role, and since it involves taking money from people involuntarily, we should make damn sure the help's truly necessary and there's not a better, voluntary way to do it first.
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.
"Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."
So government is the best friend of man's rights, while libertarianism is the biggest enemy. Libertarianism = corporate feudalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
"If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit." [2012] -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stosse...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.