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

Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#71

Post by lend000 »

s73ver wrote: post #53
lend000 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really proportional, which is why it hurts the most. Wealthy people (who don't buy extravagant things) have most of the same basic expenses as the poor, and the sales tax can really be seen as a regressive income tax that eats up a larger portion of the income of the poor.

And the flat tax proposal is the same.

A simple flat tax, yes -- not arguing with that. But your statement here is incorrect, because negative income tax variants certainly are not the same:

> There has never really been a compelling scheme for a flat tax that solves the problem inherent to it

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#72

Post by specialist »

cmdrfred wrote: post #25
specialist wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will concede there are multiple factors. Lack of access to capital, winner takes all (pro-corporate) Freedom Markets[tm] decimating competition, etc. New business (and therefor new job) creation in the USA has tanked. Especially in rural areas. However we got here, what is the fix?

>New business (and therefor new job) creation in the USA has tanked. The unemployment rate is at a 9 year low and falling. What data do you base this assertion on?

It's an old story. Just this week:

"Let’s look at just one indicator — new business formation. From 2010 to 2014, 60 percent of counties nationwide saw more businesses close than open, compared with just 17 percent during the four years following the 1990s slowdown. During the 1990s recovery, smaller communities — counties with less than half a million people — generated 71 percent of all net new businesses, with counties under 100,000 people accounting for a full third. During the 2010 to 2014 recovery, however, the figure for counties with fewer than half a million people was 19 percent. For counties with less than 100,000 people, it was zero."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/20/...

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#73

Post by random28345 »

winstonewert wrote: post #70
random28345 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lower the taxes and don't let government get their hands on it at any stage of the process. This smacks again of redistribution of wealth and I'm totally against this. Brilliant! I'm sure that startups will flourish in an environment where there is no functioning government. What I don't understand is why the movie Mad Max didn't show a vibrant startup community with flowing rivers of lattes and soylent, rather tha…

How about we start by not attacking straw men? Objecting to the redistribution of wealth isn't the same as trying to do away with the rule of law.

> Objecting to the redistribution of wealth isn't the same as trying to do away with the rule of law.

The rule of law depends on the redistribution of wealth. Courts, public defenders, police, regulators, juries don't magically appear out of nowhere.

Therefore, it seems obvious that if you are absolutely opposed to the redistribution of wealth, you are therefore absolutely opposed to what most people would consider civilization: rule of law, education, public services, etc.

Do you agree that being part of a functional modern western civilization is impossible without the redistribution of wealth (paying taxes, serving on juries)?

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#74

Post by random28345 »

winstonewert wrote: post #52
jnordwick wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the EITC adds to the virtue of work. It actually increases they payment for your salary increasing (to a point obviously). It straight supports the philosophy the more you work the more you should get paid. I think the problem might be that it is too well liked by both sides and neither side is willing to give the other a win, even if it a win for themselves too. I hate politics.

Wouldn't it work out to subsidizing the employers? My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay.

> My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay.

You are absolutely right, in the absence of a reasonable minimum wage, this is exactly what happens.

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#75

Post by jnordwick »

random28345 wrote: post #74
winstonewert wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it work out to subsidizing the employers? My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay.

> My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay. You are absolutely right, in the absence of a reasonable minimum wage, this is exactly what happens.

I'm going to need a cite for that.

Pure craziness. A minimum wage contradicts the policy objective of the EITC to work and to to earn more money, get raises, etc.

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#76

Post by jnordwick »

winstonewert wrote: post #52
jnordwick wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the EITC adds to the virtue of work. It actually increases they payment for your salary increasing (to a point obviously). It straight supports the philosophy the more you work the more you should get paid. I think the problem might be that it is too well liked by both sides and neither side is willing to give the other a win, even if it a win for themselves too. I hate politics.

Wouldn't it work out to subsidizing the employers? My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay.

No more than any other form of public assistance, and probably much less. You can make the same argument for food or cash assistance programs too.

With other programs the worker would be discouraged from looking for a higher paying job or pushing for a raise. He's disincentivized, along with his employer, from being paid more.

With the EITC he directly incentivized to look for a better paying job, work more hours, or get a raise.

While not perfect, it is far better than other forms of public assistance. It about as good as you get with a welfare program in terms of aligning motivations and interests.

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#77

Post by splintercell »

Retric wrote: post #13
twoodfin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the greatest barrier, wouldn't nations with universal health care see higher rates of entrepreneurship? I don't have numbers, but at least anecdotally it doesn't seem to be the case. Is the U.K. startup culture particularly impressive?

#4 UK(7.4/1000) does have over 3x the rate of new bussness per person than the US (2.28 /1000) which ranks #32 and is mostly behind countries with a stronger social safety net. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/New-b... Now, if you mean startups as a specific type of new and arguably lower risk business backed by VC money. That has more to do with VC funding than people willing to take risks.

The data is almost all pre-financial crises. Is there an updated chart?

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#78

Post by random28345 »

jnordwick wrote: post #75
random28345 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay. You are absolutely right, in the absence of a reasonable minimum wage, this is exactly what happens.

I'm going to need a cite for that. Pure craziness. A minimum wage contradicts the policy objective of the EITC to work and to to earn more money, get raises, etc.

> I'm going to need a cite for that.

You're going to need a citation for... employers seeking lower wages? And that these lower wages are subsidized by government benefits?

The citation would be nearly every company, ever. So start with Walmart and work your way down, I guess.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walm...

tl;dr: Taxpayers pay $5/hr in benefits to allow the employees of Walmart to be paid a wage under the poverty line.

== EDIT ==

You would agree that rent subsidies flow to landlords, and mortgage tax deductions flow to sellers, right? Why would you not understand that wage subsidies flow to employers?

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#79

Post by jnordwick »

random28345 wrote: post #78
jnordwick wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to need a cite for that. Pure craziness. A minimum wage contradicts the policy objective of the EITC to work and to to earn more money, get raises, etc.

> I'm going to need a cite for that. You're going to need a citation for... employers seeking lower wages? And that these lower wages are subsidized by government benefits? The citation would be nearly every company, ever. So start with Walmart and work your way down, I guess. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walm... tl;dr: Taxpayers pay $5/hr in benefits to allow the employees of Walmart to be…

No I'm going to need a cite for the EITC claim. I speaking about how it specifically aligns motivations and interests, because it is different than other welfare programs.

Or are you just saying all welfare programs are bad? That's not a discussion I'm willing to engage in.

On the edit - yes I agree that part of the subsidy is split, as with all subsidies, but I think the EITC uniquely incentivizes those in the program to work themselves out of it, unlike other programs. That's why I like it so much, because I think other programs do fall under your critique.

Re: Startups are America’s job engine, so give workers tax credits

#80

Post by random28345 »

jnordwick wrote: post #79
random28345 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to need a cite for that. You're going to need a citation for... employers seeking lower wages? And that these lower wages are subsidized by government benefits? The citation would be nearly every company, ever. So start with Walmart and work your way down, I guess. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walm... tl;dr: Taxpayers pay $5/hr in benefits to allow the employees of Walmart to be…

No I'm going to need a cite for the EITC claim. I speaking about how it specifically aligns motivations and interests, because it is different than other welfare programs. Or are you just saying all welfare programs are bad? That's not a discussion I'm willing to engage in. On the edit - yes I agree that part of the subsidy is split, as with all subsidies, but I think the EITC uniquely incentivizes those in the progr…

> I think the EITC uniquely incentivizes those in the program to work themselves out of it, unlike other programs. That's why I like it so much, because I think other programs do fall under your critique.

This experiment has never been done, but I think we could probably agree on the outcome of this thought experiment: In the absence of any other social programs, the net effect of EITC would be higher employment and lower (employer paid) wages as the demand for labor is (somewhat) elastic, and employers and labor will settle on a lower clearing price for hourly labor at a higher employment level.

I also agree that many welfare programs have a negative impact on work and personal income, as many social services have cliffs that reduce a recipient's net income if their wage income goes over a certain amount. That's not necessarily bad; some people do not have the option of meaningful work, a problem that many think will be exacerbated by automation. If we start actually seeing the 42% unemployment rates that were recently promoted by Trump, then tying social services to income would be devastating.

Post reply on HN