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

U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#71

Post by throwawaysea »

arcticbull wrote: post #63
throwawaysea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment talked about a flat percentage tax. So the people with more money would not be paying the "same tax". They would still be paying a lot more. A truly fair tax would have everyone paying the same flat fee for the same public services rendered.

It isn’t, though, because of the marginal utility of money. Someone making $10k/yr sees much more value from an extra $10k than someone making $10M. For one it’s a lifeline and for one a rounding error. While a flat tax is fair in numbers it’s not fair in marginal value or utility. IMO that’s a much bigger deal. There are other macroeconomic advantages to giving the little guy the extra, though I don’t want to repeat…

I feel you are reinventing definitions. The “same tax” would be very literally giving up the same value. The only common definition of value in society is currency - that is literally its role, to serve as a common measure (and storage) of utility. It does not confer net utility in and of itself (goods and services do), and therefore this argument of marginality doesn’t apply to it.

I understand that goods and services acquired with currency can experience diminishing returns. But unless you think the rich and poor should be paying different amounts for every good and service (for example a cup of coffee), then I don’t think this is a consistent, principled argument.

And once again, let me point out that GP’s comment on a flat tax would STILL mean the rich give up more value than the poor, and it would still not be a truly ‘fair’ tax. And on a side note, ‘progressive’/‘regressive’ are made up terms used to play rhetorical games by leveraging the negative connotation of the term ‘regressive’. A better set of neutral terms would be ‘uniform’ or ‘fair’ or ‘flat’ versus ‘non-uniform’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘graduated’.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#72

Post by goliatone »

pmorici wrote: post #45
arcticbull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.

I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if they are taxes aren't the problem.

I lived in different countries where they had both taxes. I think what also makes a difference is how that tax money is spent. Also, what gets taxed as a luxury item can be interesting. Things I did not expect to be taxed as luxurious items like books or tampons

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#73

Post by Bendingo »

jorblumesea wrote: post #58
alanpetrel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when did your friends become your enemy?

[flagged]

I'm sure Russia will take advantage of any split in US/EURO alliance, but if you think it's Russia that is doing the splitting, then you haven't been paying attention. The split is entirely due to US inability to cooperate or maintain an agreement with other nations, and some of those nations are finally pushing back.

The Russian word for this is недоговороспособный (not agreement capable).

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#74

Post by propogandist »

qilo wrote: post #55

Wanted to read the article, but instead got this: "You're in private mode. Log in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private mode." So headed for page source and stumbled onto this wtf: Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:30 PM Subject: Rollout To: Bennet, James James, Here’s a line up for the launch tomorrow, all of these will be online before Sunday: • A.G.’s publisher’s note about The Times •…

this appears to be a legit email, although I don't understand how this got into the page source.

The URL posted in the email nytimes.com/privacy-project redirects to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-pr... and there are articles that are published on 4/11/2019 whereas it's only 4/10 as of me writing this comment.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#75

Post by tdhoot »

qilo wrote: post #55

Wanted to read the article, but instead got this: "You're in private mode. Log in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private mode." So headed for page source and stumbled onto this wtf: Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:30 PM Subject: Rollout To: Bennet, James James, Here’s a line up for the launch tomorrow, all of these will be online before Sunday: • A.G.’s publisher’s note about The Times •…

Wow, how is this comment not getting more notice. This is a hilarious screw-up. Seems like the NYT is launching a new privacy initiative tomorrow.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#76

Post by AntiTechTechie »

kenneth wrote: post #53
arcticbull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.

Good. Given a fair tax system would be proportional / flat, perhaps a little imbalance in the other direction evens it all out towards flat / proportional tax (everyone at the same percentage)

Good point...I'd like to see a flat income tax of 0% and then have taxes based on consumption

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#78

Post by ahartmetz »

Bendingo wrote: post #73
jorblumesea wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm sure Russia will take advantage of any split in US/EURO alliance, but if you think it's Russia that is doing the splitting, then you haven't been paying attention. The split is entirely due to US inability to cooperate or maintain an agreement with other nations, and some of those nations are finally pushing back. The Russian word for this is недоговороспособный (not agreement capable).

[flagged]

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#79

Post by int_19h »

throwawaysea wrote: post #71
arcticbull wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t, though, because of the marginal utility of money. Someone making $10k/yr sees much more value from an extra $10k than someone making $10M. For one it’s a lifeline and for one a rounding error. While a flat tax is fair in numbers it’s not fair in marginal value or utility. IMO that’s a much bigger deal. There are other macroeconomic advantages to giving the little guy the extra, though I don’t want to repeat…

I feel you are reinventing definitions. The “same tax” would be very literally giving up the same value. The only common definition of value in society is currency - that is literally its role, to serve as a common measure (and storage) of utility. It does not confer net utility in and of itself (goods and services do), and therefore this argument of marginality doesn’t apply to it. I understand that goods and servic…

"Regressive" is not a synonym for "flat" - a flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive. And these terms are purely descriptive, defined via their effect on the effective tax rates.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#80

Post by solatic »

pmorici wrote: post #45
arcticbull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.

I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if they are taxes aren't the problem.

The poor may not be buying Rolex watches, but you can be sure that there are a lot of kids out there lusting after $400 basketball shoes. And you might be surprised at what counts as a luxury sometimes - liquor, steak, and other goods that even poor people can sometimes afford.

If you start taxing luxury goods, all you do is put creature comforts further out of the reach of the majority. That is regressive.

Post reply on HN