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

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#121

Post by forensic »

rpm4321 wrote: post #115
forensic wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want downvoting privileges, but think insults are appropriate here, and even equate those insults with proofs! comic.

Look, before PG rightfully jumps in here like the SkiFree Yeti and tells us both to knock it off, let's see if we can squash this: http://xkcd.com/667/ I'll concede that my last comment was inappropriate (it's super-basic Python, not a proof). Can you at least concede that loose talk of beheading capitalists is, at the very least, counter-productive to what we should all want, which is a robust recovery? Are you real…

>(it's super-basic Python, not a proof).

Uh huh. The name of your method was "proof". I've been on HN for four years and you think I don't know how to read and write python? I'm a lisp hacker who came to this place back when it was about lisp hacking for hackers. Now, right wing business douches like you come along spouting talking points straight out of the corporate PR department.

First of all, I did not threaten anyone with the guillotine. The simple fact of the matter is that if the wealthy keep spouting bullshit designed to fuck the poor (which is all that your kind of speech is) then they are going to get guillotined. Don't think the reincarnation of Robespierre is not chomping at the bit to chop your neck.

Naturally, I have no interest in killing pg or myself or any other rich people. However, I have an interest in the survival and success of the human species.

These CEOs that you cite should be afraid. Their poor hearts are chilled at the possibility of a tax raise on their 14% tax burdens. Boo hoo! I am making the point that a tax raise on a billionaire is warm and balmy next to the ice cold steel that you get on the chopping block.

If these CEOs, the richest in all of history, keep acting like idiots they are going to get us all killed. And we'll deserve it. Fuck us if we are so myopic and pathetic that we can't create a rational vision of a human future to build and instead surrender all our autonomy to some metaphysical libertarian nonsense that is widely ridiculed by Nobel Prize winning economists.

In conclusion, welcome to HN. There are a lot more people here than just corporate blowhards and their nerd-slaves. Hacker culture still has some blood in its veins.

This post written in Vim on Ubuntu (not that I'm a fan of Ubuntu or anything. But apt sure is nice!).

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#122

Post by rpm4321 »

forensic wrote: post #121
rpm4321 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, before PG rightfully jumps in here like the SkiFree Yeti and tells us both to knock it off, let's see if we can squash this: http://xkcd.com/667/ I'll concede that my last comment was inappropriate (it's super-basic Python, not a proof). Can you at least concede that loose talk of beheading capitalists is, at the very least, counter-productive to what we should all want, which is a robust recovery? Are you real…

>(it's super-basic Python, not a proof). Uh huh. The name of your method was "proof". I've been on HN for four years and you think I don't know how to read and write python? I'm a lisp hacker who came to this place back when it was about lisp hacking for hackers. Now, right wing business douches like you come along spouting talking points straight out of the corporate PR department. First of all, I did not threaten a…

Okay, thank you for confirming that there is no reasoning with you forensic. I'll save PG the trouble of yelling at us and end my part in this here.

Also, just to clarify, I've been an independent freelance programmer/serial entrepreneur for over 10 years - I've never worked for or held an interest in a big corporation, and my bank account balance looks a lot more like an OWS member than a VC. I'm just not gullible enough to fall for this class warfare nonsense, or blame others for my success or lack thereof.

Tell you what: when OWS rounds you up, I'll have a talk with my fellow plebs and see if I can get you a pass.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#123

Post by ianb »

gwright wrote: post #112
ianb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I offered a thought experiment, and using the example of "giving $1,000" is easier to think about than "not taking $1,000". As a thought experiment they are equivalent, with respect to the question: who utilizes resources most efficiently? By introducing variability of how much the government takes total it adds another question that is being used to persistently distract from the question of progressivity. When peop…

OK, I'll accept that you weren't intending to suggest that the government has primary claim on your income but you seem unaware of how your framing has been used by others to actually make that claim. I can accept theoretically that you can separate the progressive structure of the federal income tax from spending decisions but in reality it is pretty hard to solve our budget problems by simply taxing the 'rich'--at…

Now we're demanding that progressivity must balance the budget too? This is car salesman accounting, muddling unrelated choices together to distract from individual choices that can be rationally considered.

You keep giving these pundit talking points – the talking points of pundits have been rehashed enough, we shouldn't be using them here, it's not a productive form of discussion. Are we men or are we pundits? I, sir, am a man! ;)

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#124

Post by chasing »

nugget wrote: post #109
chasing wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I didn't say that folks in the public sector are lazy or stupid, I said that there is rarely a direct connection between their performance on the job and their financial upside. Public sector workers are much more concerned about downside protection (i.e. avoid controversial decisions, cover your ass). In many cases, and I've seen this first hand, inaction is safer than action, whereas the opposite is usually true in…

You're right -- I've never seen anyone in the private sector avoid controversial decisions or cover their ass. We should hand over all our nation's money to Bill Nguyen.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#125

Post by forensic »

rpm4321 wrote: post #122
forensic wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(it's super-basic Python, not a proof). Uh huh. The name of your method was "proof". I've been on HN for four years and you think I don't know how to read and write python? I'm a lisp hacker who came to this place back when it was about lisp hacking for hackers. Now, right wing business douches like you come along spouting talking points straight out of the corporate PR department. First of all, I did not threaten a…

Okay, thank you for confirming that there is no reasoning with you forensic. I'll save PG the trouble of yelling at us and end my part in this here. Also, just to clarify, I've been an independent freelance programmer/serial entrepreneur for over 10 years - I've never worked for or held an interest in a big corporation, and my bank account balance looks a lot more like an OWS member than a VC. I'm just not gullible e…

If you don't recognize the high privilege of working as an entrepreneur in the first world for 10 years, you are just clueless. There are people starving to death because of the first world economic policy that you advocate, or at least that you perpetuate.

I'm not an Occupier. I advocate meritocracy. And meritocracy doesn't happen when you deny opportunity to the majority through economic policy that keeps the plutocracy entrenched.

Occupy is a great example of how sad the underclass is. Look at how pathetic they are. They are completely irrational and lost and have no idea what to even do. Of course, they're just sheep. But if the Goldman Sachs of the world keep growing the numbers of that herd (and all signs point to yes) then eventually there will be enough sheep for a Fuhrer to come along and point them at the enemy.

BTW, pg doesn't bother yelling at anyone here.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#126

Post by dkarl »

gwright wrote: post #102
dkarl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that taxation should be predicated on whether the government or the person can 'better use' the person's money is damn scary. Why is it scary? Your tax dollars go to the government because other citizens wish their tax dollars to go to the government, because they believe the government is the most efficient way to provide certain goods. Basically, they believe the government can spend their money better t…

Taxes are entirely not consensual. And that is the crux of the matter. Because they are not consensual there needs to be some sort of mechanism to limit the ability for the majority to simply appropriate money and property from the minority. Suggesting that the only limiting factor is whether the government (even a democratically elected one) thinks it can use the money better than you can, really isn't a limit. When…

You're arguing the old maker versus taker canard, which doesn't reflect reality at all. Taxation would not exist without the consent of a large number of economically productive taxpayers. If you think politics in the United States is run by poor people, or by mysterious forces that somehow nullify and overcome the economic power of a preponderance of American taxpayers, you are kidding yourself. You'd be better off engaging with American taxpayers who want the government to play a certain role and want to pay for it than pretending we don't exist. If you persist in believing that government is a conspiracy by parasites against the productive, then you are going to be perpetually confused and disappointed by American politics. Warren Buffet is trying to help you out, to clue you in to the fact that the politics surrounding government spending and revenue are not determined by the economic divisions you think they are. Accept that a large number of prosperous Americans (such as Warren Buffet) are willing taxpayers who approve of many forms of government spending, and I promise you, things will become a lot clearer. You might even be able to frame your arguments in a form that a presidential candidate wouldn't have to apologize for repeating.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#127

Post by gyardley »

forensic wrote: post #78
gyardley wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't possibly actually believe this. 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…

It's disingenuous to say you're working FOR the disadvantaged. They aren't directing your activity and they have no power in the matter. Government actually responds to the desires of the disadvantaged so the difference is infinite. Volunteer organizations only serve a very, very narrow sliver of the disadvantaged, and they usually don't work to eradicate the disadvantaged but rather to exploit them to perpetuate the…

Your comment is bizarre.

First, if government has been responding to the desires of the disadvantaged all along, it would seem that a good portion of the poor and disadvantaged want to stay poor and disadvantaged. I don't believe that's the case - so either the government hasn't been responding to the desires of the disadvantaged or the government has been rather ineffective at it.

Second, your description of a volunteer organization is so ridiculously counter to reality, I'm certain you've never spent time working for one. Here's how something like a county food bank actually works: civic organizations (mostly churches, but also groups like the Rotary and Lions Club) organize food drives and solicit donations. Grocery stores and restaurants donate food as well. Volunteers sort and bag groceries and man the food bank during pickup hours - anyone who wants the food gets the food. (Other volunteers drive food to elderly or disabled people who can't make it in.)

No one is paid, no one even has the ability to handle credit cards, and no disadvantaged people are paraded around in fundraising pitches. Donations of food mainly come from everyday people, and are widespread throughout the community. We serve a lot of people in our county, not a 'very, very narrow sliver'. You calling the work done by volunteers 'poverty tourism' is just you being an ass.

As for whether the food bank encompasses 'prevention' - no, it does not. There are plenty of other community organizations that do, though. The biggest and most effective are probably the marriage counseling and parenting classes provided by local churches to their members.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#128

Post by tsotha »

damian2000 wrote: post #33
tsotha wrote: post #12

Hey Warren, instead of an income tax, don't you think a wealth tax would be better? Oh, I thought not.

It would be against the US constitution anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

Did you read that link? It would only be unconstitutional at the federal level, and even a federal wealth tax would be constitutional if the revenue were "apportioned among the states".

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#129

Post by tsotha »

prostoalex wrote: post #113
notJim wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a riskily reductionist point, as we know that people aren't always single-issue voters focused on achieving their financial best interests.

Oh, definitely. Even folks who are single-issue voters realize that outside of supermajority years executive branch of government has to compromise. However, the anecdotal evidence of "stored wealth vs current income" tax is there, notice how "let's-back-tax-everybodys-income" Prop-30-happy California is also home to "dont-you-dare-to-raise-taxes-on-my-mansions" Prop 13. My original remark was to point out that wealt…

>Prop-30-happy California is also home to "dont-you-dare-to-raise-taxes-on-my-mansions" Prop 13.

Mansions? Hardly. More like "Don't raise taxes on my tiny tract home through the roof based on ridiculously inflated real estate values."

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#130

Post by tsotha »

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…

>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 fine with that.

That's because they don't expect to pay higher taxes. When you have enough money you can route your income through offshore shell corporations and paper banks in the Mediterranean. Taxes are for the little people.

Post reply on HN