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

USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

usafacts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–359 of 359 posts

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#351

Post by [deleted] »

rqebmm wrote: post #250
amscanne wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a pretty poor argument for a flat tax and in fact could be seen as an argument against it. If raising top end bracket taxes didn't increase overall income, then it must be the case that it reduced the tax burden on lower incomes -- which is the entire point of progressive taxes. So progressive taxes work, let's keep them! Not necessarily. That would be true if the absolute $$$ collected were the sam…

> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). I know you're just using this as an example, but it begs a question I've struggled with: is there any actual proof that marginal tax rates reduce productivity in high earners? On its face it makes perfect micro-economic sense, but that's like saying a cache will never miss or a cow is perfectly spherical. It just doesn't match…

[deleted]

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#352

Post by amscanne »

awj wrote: post #293
amscanne wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a pretty poor argument for a flat tax and in fact could be seen as an argument against it. If raising top end bracket taxes didn't increase overall income, then it must be the case that it reduced the tax burden on lower incomes -- which is the entire point of progressive taxes. So progressive taxes work, let's keep them! Not necessarily. That would be true if the absolute $$$ collected were the sam…

> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). I have literally never once heard or even heard of someone deciding to work less because they don't want to pay as much in taxes.

Of course it happens.

I knew a surgeon who chose to work half days because the marginal gains were not as good as working half days (in Ontario, so his marginal rate was ~50%).

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#353

Post by amscanne »

vacri wrote: post #304
amscanne wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a pretty poor argument for a flat tax and in fact could be seen as an argument against it. If raising top end bracket taxes didn't increase overall income, then it must be the case that it reduced the tax burden on lower incomes -- which is the entire point of progressive taxes. So progressive taxes work, let's keep them! Not necessarily. That would be true if the absolute $$$ collected were the sam…

> Consider the following: 10 people earn $10 and pay $1 in tax. 10 people earn $20 and pay $5 tax. This is way out of proportion to real-life values, and the semantics of this equation change quite a bit with even minor changes. For example, after your high-earner tax hike, the low earners are left with $9 and the high earners are left with $12. This is absurdist nonsense that does not match up with what happens in t…

I'm only demonstrating that the assertion that increasing marginal rates always means a larger share of the tax burden is put on the rich -- this is not true.

The example is given to be demonstrative, not to represent a real world scenario.

Everything depends on the specific numbers, clearly. That's the point I'm trying to make as well.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#354

Post by kzrdude »

dota_fanatic wrote: post #161
kzrdude wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retirement age must increase. People are living longer than when retirement pensions were first designed. It was easy to introduce, people weren't expected to live that long then and now they do.

So (rich) people are living longer... does that mean they are as productive, longer? Just because they're alive longer doesn't mean they can work as well in their 70s as they used to. There's also the whole ageism thing to consider. How hard is it to get a job in your 60s. How about if you're 70? 75? The people with the lowest life expectancy are those that need SS the most, yet you're suggesting they not be able to…

If you're thinking of America, it has homework to do first with SS (health care for all). I can see your perspective coming from there, I don't think it would be a viable argument in Europe.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#355

Post by kzrdude »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #190
kzrdude wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retirement age must increase. People are living longer than when retirement pensions were first designed. It was easy to introduce, people weren't expected to live that long then and now they do.

This!!! I believe originally the retirement age was set way above the average life expectancy. Some information I had was that when it was first setup life expectancy was 55 yrs while you could collect SS at 60 years. If that is really the case then SS has been a ponzi scheme of sorts for a while but now that people are living longer the time to payback is coming. Second, I think sometime in the 70's or 80's accounti…

I believed so too, but reading on Wikipedia somewhat opened my mind to different arguments, since they underscore how the average life expectancy could be said to be approximately 70 years at the introduction of the 70 year retirement age in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_%28Germany%29#...

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#356

Post by tunesmith »

mason240 wrote: post #350
tunesmith wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. It's actually a lousy question because it proves nothing. Money is held in different accounts not because they are actually s…

>Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. These are two completely separate concepts, but if you insist on equating them, here we go: Imagine you borrowed money to a…

The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. Your scenario is based on the assumption that "the business spent the money" and "gave you an IOU". When the fact is that the government did not "spend the trust fund", and there is no such thing as a social security IOU.

As far as the general fund being in deficit, how they resolve that has nothing to do with social security, which has a healthy trust fund to draw upon until 2034, after which benefits will automatically shrink until payroll contributions are enough to fund the trust fund again.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

If on the very small chance you are not in favor of cutting social security in any sense, know that the argument that there "is no trust fund" and "it's just IOUs" is a right-wing argument, a right-wing frame, that is typically only advanced to justify cutting social security in some way. If you are not in favor of cutting social security, find different language. If you are, then be intellectually honest about your views that government has no role in doing what social security does, rather than engaging in myths about non-existence of trust funds.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#357

Post by Alexqw85 »

zhengyi13 wrote: post #270
genericpseudo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an American citizen, I'm still subject to federal income tax, even on income earned while I'm residing outside the country, for work done entirely outside the country, for a non-American employer. This is a really unusual part of the US tax code.

ICBW but I believe this applies only to income earned over a certain dollar amount - 80K USD, last I looked, and only at the rate of the delta, if that makes sense. Oh hey, it's over $100K now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_earned_income_exclusio...

Please note that number is in USD.

I personally have no problem staying under $100k; I live in Germany and work at a university. But imagine if you lived in Switzerland or Norway. Somewhere with a high cost of living and with a currency that is very strong vs the USD. Then it doesn't take much to go over that 100k.

And even though I don't have to pay US federal taxes (being under that $100k), I still have have the file state taxes, federal taxes, and an FBAR. Every single year. The time and effort is an annoyance, but what bothers me most is the principal. I don't live in the US; I don't use its services; and still, every year, I have to allocate a weekend to provide them with every single detail of my financial life.

---Alex

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#358

Post by mason240 »

tunesmith wrote: post #356
mason240 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. These are two completely separate concepts, but if you insist on equating them, here we go: Imagine you borrowed money to a…

The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. Your scenario is based on the assumption that "the business spent the money" and "gave you an IOU". When the fact is that the government did not "spend the trust fund", and there is no such thing as a social security IOU. As far as the general fund being in deficit, how they resolve that has nothing to do with social securi…

>The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund.

It's YOUR comparison.

What a troll.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#359

Post by mason240 »

tunesmith wrote: post #356
mason240 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. These are two completely separate concepts, but if you insist on equating them, here we go: Imagine you borrowed money to a…

The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. Your scenario is based on the assumption that "the business spent the money" and "gave you an IOU". When the fact is that the government did not "spend the trust fund", and there is no such thing as a social security IOU. As far as the general fund being in deficit, how they resolve that has nothing to do with social securi…

Oh wow, you really dug out a sockpuppet to downvote me for pointing out that comparison you shredding was YOUR comparision?

That's really sad.

Post reply on HN