Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally • Hacker News Board

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#81

Post by nightski » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

dorchadas wrote: post #67

nightski wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are quite a few people who take cash and yet do not report it as income. However, in the case you are describing a business would have to sell something illegally (without reporting their sales to the IRS). In my mind controlling businesses is far less burden on the IRS than individuals (how many returns are audited again? less than 1%?). Not only that, if that money is then used to purchase legitimate goods th…

> There are quite a few people who take cash and yet do not report it as income. However, in the case you are describing a business would have to sell something illegally (without reporting their sales to the IRS). In my mind controlling businesses is far less burden on the IRS than individuals (how many returns are audited again? less than 1%?). You can easily do the same thing. Just take the cash from selling stuff…

This narrative that it hurts the poor is just not true. You get a prebate for basic consumption. It only hurts the poor who spend beyond their means on luxury goods, which is a hopeless situation anyways. (hurts is a poor term, because the cost of goods might not go up at all even with the tax included due to reasons stated elsewhere)

If anything, it allows the poor to pay less tax and save more of their paycheck if desired. It puts the choice in their hands.

Before it is claimed that the poor don't pay tax now anyways - that is only true if you consider gross income to be representative of financial status. You can make an above U.S. average salary and still be poor depending on where you live. This system does not discriminate based on gross income. It's like a no-limit IRA that you can withdraw from at any time.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#82

Post by ashwinaj » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

Interesting analysis, for me the takeaway was that he is 24. Going anecdotally, most people who are 24 think money can buy happiness; and it makes sense since most of them have:

1. Some form of debt

2. Lived off their parents or lower wage work

3. All of a sudden get paid thousands of $$ (assuming it's a high paid full time job, which this person seems to have)

As we grow older, I think our perspectives change (mine certainly did). It's the same argument that we no longer played with dolls/toys/action figures when we are in our teens.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#83

Post by dorchadas » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:57 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #81

dorchadas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are quite a few people who take cash and yet do not report it as income. However, in the case you are describing a business would have to sell something illegally (without reporting their sales to the IRS). In my mind controlling businesses is far less burden on the IRS than individuals (how many returns are audited again? less than 1%?). You can easily do the same thing. Just take the cash from selling stuff…

This narrative that it hurts the poor is just not true. You get a prebate for basic consumption. It only hurts the poor who spend beyond their means on luxury goods, which is a hopeless situation anyways. (hurts is a poor term, because the cost of goods might not go up at all even with the tax included due to reasons stated elsewhere) If anything, it allows the poor to pay less tax and save more of their paycheck if…

You're assuming they give a prebate. Most people I know just want a flat sales tax, without any prebate. Which does harm the poor.

> This system does not discriminate based on gross income.

But it does. It still impacts those who make less more. It costs more of what little income they do get to keep after bills, and applies it to all necessities. It's a horrible idea.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#84

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

Kaveren wrote: post #41

marcosdumay wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are creating a straw-men. The GP clearly wasn't talking about the top 1%.

> "It's a major reason why taxation should focus on the rich (as opposed to the 'well off' e.g. high incomes). They really will not notice it aside from ideological opposition." I don't understand what the srawman you think I was making is supposed to be. The quote is what I was replying to. He was referring on taxation focusing on the rich (not the well off). My original reply was commenting on that. Is the strawman…

Financial security is a much higher bar than 1%.