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

People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#21

Post by maximilian »

modoc wrote: post #3
drewcrawford wrote: post #2

The question is not "Can they afford a tax hike?" The question is, "Will they continue to gross $250,000 and take home less of it, or will they find a lower-stressed job and make less?" The answer is probably the latter, for a lot of folks.

I'm right there on that line. Honestly I pay a TON of taxes already. Very high rate, lots of taxable income. Cutting back to be under 250k would probably make more sense than making 255k and paying a lot more in taxes. I don't mind taxes and social programs. I do mind paying for unending wars in the Middle East (not making a political statement, just a budgetary one). Cut some of the crazy expenses, and I'll be happi…

If you make $255K, you only get a higher tax rate on the extra $5K. You'll still have more money than someone making $249K. No matter how you slice it, more money = more money. The gov't just will tax you a bit extra on the 5K.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#22

Post by nickpp »

jfager wrote: post #12
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #6

Of course they can "afford" it. But so what? Every single billionaire can "afford" to be taxed at a 99% rate. The bigger question: is it in any way fair, just, or moral to tax society's most successful more heavily just for being more successful? EDIT: The other salient question that I forgot to mention is: "why do we need more taxes?" Our government already can't manage what they have with any sort of reasonable eff…

Why shouldn't the people who benefit the most from how society is structured be expected to pay the most for its maintenance?

Who benefits the most from the society IN RAPORT TO HIS CONTRIBUTION: the one making 30k or the one making 300k?

Edit: just having the money in the bank is not benefiting. Using service, health care, infrastructure, education, free time, etc. That is benefiting.

Edit2: Furthermore, they are ALREADY paying the most.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#23

Post by grandalf »

Most people in the US pay no taxes at all. The $250K threshold hits lots of hard working professionals and entrepreneurs who are by no means "rich" and who work extremely hard.

I'd argue that people earning $250K who are paying off loans and working 60+ hour weeks cannot afford it... and that taxing them is a horrible policy idea, no matter how well it resonates with voters who themselves pay no taxes (or people like the author who live in Westport CT).

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#24

Post by kyro »

This is one thing that never fails to irritate me: the stigma against the wealthy. It's almost as if all the energy, effort, time, sacrifice, and risk usually taken by many who are now wealthy are completely overlooked, making them look undeserving of their money as if they were born with golden spoons in their mouths. My father immigrated to America from Egypt in the mid-80s shortly after he graduated medical school in Cairo to find a better living. When he got here, he went to school, took a graveyard shift as a security guard and worked at a gas station to make ends meet. He moved to four or so different states to join various medical programs, etc, and finally settled here in southern California as a fairly successful physician who makes $250,000+ a year. Knowing all the work that he's put into creating this life, my blood boils when I read headlines like these as if someone like my father doesn't/didn't work as hard as others to make a living. He is one example, and there are myriad of foreigners who have done the same, not to mention startuppers who literally put EVERYTHING on the line to increase their chances at success. To say that these types of people can just afford it as if it were some obligation is idiotic and infuriating.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#25

Post by charlesju »

Here is what this author doesn't understand. People who make much more than $250,000 a year rarely let that money touch income taxes. The tax game is all about creating trusts, funneling through shelter companies, long-term capital gains, expensing the heck out of everything, etc.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#26

Post by DanielBMarkham »

jfager wrote: post #12
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #6

Of course they can "afford" it. But so what? Every single billionaire can "afford" to be taxed at a 99% rate. The bigger question: is it in any way fair, just, or moral to tax society's most successful more heavily just for being more successful? EDIT: The other salient question that I forgot to mention is: "why do we need more taxes?" Our government already can't manage what they have with any sort of reasonable eff…

Why shouldn't the people who benefit the most from how society is structured be expected to pay the most for its maintenance?

Ok so let's say I have a billion dollars.

I can live anywhere in the world I want to -- and with all kinds of luxuries.

Seems to me like the "people who benefit most from how society is structured" would be those poor folks who through no fault of their own, perhaps mental retardation, chronic illness, or birth defect, cannot make a living and yet are provided for by the rest of us. These are the people who would die under a differently structured system, right?

After all, rich folks got it good under all kinds of systems.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#27

Post by fleitz »

jfager wrote: post #12
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #6

Of course they can "afford" it. But so what? Every single billionaire can "afford" to be taxed at a 99% rate. The bigger question: is it in any way fair, just, or moral to tax society's most successful more heavily just for being more successful? EDIT: The other salient question that I forgot to mention is: "why do we need more taxes?" Our government already can't manage what they have with any sort of reasonable eff…

Why shouldn't the people who benefit the most from how society is structured be expected to pay the most for its maintenance?

I believe you are conflating society and government, and I'd actually be very much in favor of the gov't providing bills for it's services so that I could cancel the "services" I don't want, and/or find alternate providers.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#29

Post by byrneseyeview »

garethm wrote: post #18

This reminds me of the article a few years ago that indicated that Warren Buffett had a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, even though he made heaps more. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ec...

That was because he's counting capital gains. Capital gains are the tax you pay based on the price of a stock, which is based on the net present value of the company's dividends (taxed at 15%), which are paid out of its profits after taxes (35%). So it looks like the taxes he's paying on the extra earnings of Coca-Cola are about 53%.

At least he doesn't pay FICA taxes on that. On the other hand, the capital he invests does allow companies to hire more people, who do pay taxes.

The utility-maximizing way to tax Mr. Buffett is at 0%. He'll invest it effectively, it will grow the economy, more jobs will be created, and we'll end up with more wealth to squander through silly redistributive schemes.

Re: People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike.

#30

Post by anigbrowl »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #6

Of course they can "afford" it. But so what? Every single billionaire can "afford" to be taxed at a 99% rate. The bigger question: is it in any way fair, just, or moral to tax society's most successful more heavily just for being more successful? EDIT: The other salient question that I forgot to mention is: "why do we need more taxes?" Our government already can't manage what they have with any sort of reasonable eff…

Our government already can't manage what they have with any sort of reasonable efficiency.

An assertion in axiomatic clothing, I think.

As for your opening question, more successful at what? Certainly, success in one's career or investment is one answer, but so is 'successful at minimizing one's tax liability'. We're talking about going back to the marginal tax rates of the 1990s, which strangely I don't remember as being a time of great fiscal suffering. If we had not cut those taxes to begin with, perhaps we wouldn't have such large deficits as we presently do.

Post reply on HN