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

Taxing Growth

equitileconversations.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Taxing Growth

#51

Post by graemep »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #49
graemep wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I meant to link to a constant number. It still debunks the post I replied to. its not great, but very similar to the closest comparable economies: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KN?end=2024...

Why do you feel the need to "debunk" my comment especially when the data do show the decline of GDP per capita I mentioned? Of course you'll always be able to claim that I was wrong by picking a suitable baseline year... But why? My point was to highlight how the lack of growth is a big issue. Do you have something constructive to discuss on the topic of the article?

> Why do you feel the need to "debunk" my comment

Because its wrong. Look at the graph. it shows some years of decline (Covid and the 2008 financial crisis) but overall there has been growth over the long term.

If you are now claiming "growth has been too low" I agree that the UK's economy, like other western European economies, has been stagnant with only 7% growth over the last decade.

Re: Taxing Growth

#52

Post by __s »

blitzar wrote: post #45
rtkwe wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only line flat enough for industry to not come back asking for more cuts will be the flat strike through line on any taxes that they pay.

I would like to introduce a concept - negative taxation - you (the taxpayer) pay us a royalty for gracing you with our presence.

you're describing subsidies

Re: Taxing Growth

#53

Post by graemep »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #37
graemep wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GDP per capita has been declining in the UK not true: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CN?location... There were declines in 2009 andd 2020, for reasons that out to be fairly obvious, but overall consistent growth > that also means retaliatory barriers from the EU, which is still the largest trading partner (41% of exports, twice the volume to the 2nd export market, which is the US However, trade wi…

It is true [1][2]. I don't know how the graph you quote is calculated (no inflation?) but clearly the GDP hasn't grown 30% since 2020 (31,516 to 41,184), LOL. 6% growth a year would be a wet dream anywhere in the developped world. The GDP grew only 1.3% over the last 12 months and the population had grown 1.1% over the preceding 12 months... So at best economic growth barely exceeds population growth but overall it's…

> the reality is not so simple if that means taking a massive hit on 41% of our exports

Is it actually 41%? Is it a massive hit? What is the economic impact of small trade frictions on a declining proportion of exports. The main reason for the decline is not Brexit, it is that the EU is a declining proportion of the world economy because Europe is the slowest growing region of the world.

> This is the whole Brexit story.

No, it really is not. Similar economies in the EU are doing about as badly as the UK so you cannot blame Brexit

> So at best economic growth barely exceeds population growth but overall it's flat to down.

One of the replies to my comment links to a graph at constant currency and is shows low growth so you might stretch to flat/stagnant, but definitely not down.

Re: Taxing Growth

#54

Post by mytailorisrich »

throw0101d wrote: post #50
mytailorisrich wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a problem is to think that people become rich at the expense of the poor. This is not a zero-sum game. This leads to the erroneous assumption that making the rich less rich will make the poor less poor. That's obviously not the case.

> This leads to the erroneous assumption that making the rich less rich will make the poor less poor. That's obviously not the case. Taking more money from the poor makes them more poor. Taking more from the rich 'harms' them less because of the margin utility of money: taking $1k from someone making $160k is qualitatively different from someone making $60k. Taking 20% from someone making $160k ($32k) is qualitativel…

You'll note you've not rebuked what you've quoted from my previous comment, you've argued something different altogether, and used tautologies and fallacies, too.

It not even related to the original comment I replied to about becoming rich the exoense of the poor...

Re: Taxing Growth

#55

Post by Karrot_Kream »

embedding-shape wrote: post #34
floundy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quality of discourse on HN has been nearing the bottom of the barrel (read: mostly indistinguishable from Reddit) since the pandemic. It’s very rare these days to see citations or even arguments that explain personal reasoning. Just like Reddit and Facebook, commenters mostly write what they think or feel as if it were unyielding fact, and the most common denominator (read: boring, derivative, often oversimplifie…

> The quality of discourse on HN has been nearing the bottom of the barrel (read: mostly indistinguishable from Reddit) since the pandemic That's very much not true, and it's also a tale as old as HN at this point. Since I started commenting on HN in 2010 sometime, the quality had stayed more or less the same, and hasn't drastically dropped in quality like Reddit has done as it grew. Also, the amount of comments that…

[dead]

Re: Taxing Growth

#56

Post by mytailorisrich »

graemep wrote: post #53
mytailorisrich wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true [1][2]. I don't know how the graph you quote is calculated (no inflation?) but clearly the GDP hasn't grown 30% since 2020 (31,516 to 41,184), LOL. 6% growth a year would be a wet dream anywhere in the developped world. The GDP grew only 1.3% over the last 12 months and the population had grown 1.1% over the preceding 12 months... So at best economic growth barely exceeds population growth but overall it's…

> the reality is not so simple if that means taking a massive hit on 41% of our exports Is it actually 41%? Is it a massive hit? What is the economic impact of small trade frictions on a declining proportion of exports. The main reason for the decline is not Brexit, it is that the EU is a declining proportion of the world economy because Europe is the slowest growing region of the world. > This is the whole Brexit st…

In your strange haste to prove me wrong you have not taken the time to read my comment.

Yes, currently 41% of UK exports go to the EU.

The point is that we have a deal with the EU for access. But that might change. If we went low tax/low regs the EU may very well retaliate by putting barriers to trade with us. This would seriously hurt our exports (a "big hit"...). Hence, reality of being "free to do what we want" outisde of the EU is not so simple.

This is the whole Brexit story because that has been the debate of "freedom" vs "alignment" and issues of access to EU market since the Brexit referendum.

> but definitely not down.

The graph shows a decline, as said and repeated... Obviously not over the long term but I never suggested that.

Re: Taxing Growth

#57

Post by throw0101d »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #54
throw0101d wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This leads to the erroneous assumption that making the rich less rich will make the poor less poor. That's obviously not the case. Taking more money from the poor makes them more poor. Taking more from the rich 'harms' them less because of the margin utility of money: taking $1k from someone making $160k is qualitatively different from someone making $60k. Taking 20% from someone making $160k ($32k) is qualitativel…

You'll note you've not rebuked what you've quoted from my previous comment, you've argued something different altogether, and used tautologies and fallacies, too. It not even related to the original comment I replied to about becoming rich the exoense of the poor...

I've argued that, given the need to fund government, the point of marginal tax rates is to not to make the rick less rich, but to not make the poor any more poor, but rather to take the money from those who can better afford to have it taken from.

I.e., to take money from those who have (more) money.

Re: Taxing Growth

#58

Post by mytailorisrich »

graemep wrote: post #51
mytailorisrich wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel the need to "debunk" my comment especially when the data do show the decline of GDP per capita I mentioned? Of course you'll always be able to claim that I was wrong by picking a suitable baseline year... But why? My point was to highlight how the lack of growth is a big issue. Do you have something constructive to discuss on the topic of the article?

> Why do you feel the need to "debunk" my comment Because its wrong. Look at the graph. it shows some years of decline (Covid and the 2008 financial crisis) but overall there has been growth over the long term. If you are now claiming "growth has been too low" I agree that the UK's economy, like other western European economies, has been stagnant with only 7% growth over the last decade.

Exactly as predicted you are now claiming that I am still wrong by picking a suitable timescale instead of discussing the point. As already said in another comment the graph does show a decline as 2024 is still below 2019, especially with a drop in 2023 (which corresponds to the highest annual population growth on record).

I don't know why you are doing that (using narrowest possible interpretation of what I wrote to "prove me wrong" and "debunk") but you are not commenting anything constructive or substantial.

Re: Taxing Growth

#59

Post by rtkwe »

__s wrote: post #52
blitzar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to introduce a concept - negative taxation - you (the taxpayer) pay us a royalty for gracing you with our presence.

you're describing subsidies

I think we can presume they know that and are just continuing the fun slightly snarky framing. There are also minor differences in implementation between negative taxes (credits beyond obligations which can happen in the US though they're very, very rare) and subsidies.

Re: Taxing Growth

#60

Post by graemep »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #58
graemep wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you feel the need to "debunk" my comment Because its wrong. Look at the graph. it shows some years of decline (Covid and the 2008 financial crisis) but overall there has been growth over the long term. If you are now claiming "growth has been too low" I agree that the UK's economy, like other western European economies, has been stagnant with only 7% growth over the last decade.

Exactly as predicted you are now claiming that I am still wrong by picking a suitable timescale instead of discussing the point. As already said in another comment the graph does show a decline as 2024 is still below 2019, especially with a drop in 2023 (which corresponds to the highest annual population growth on record). I don't know why you are doing that (using narrowest possible interpretation of what I wrote to…

OK, so your claim of decline is true if you carefully pick the right timescale. I do not think that approach is reasonable.

The UK economy (in common with other European economies) did badly in 2023 which proves what exactly?

Post reply on HN