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

I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#81

Post by slang800 »

oceliker wrote: post #56
ninkendo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were a military commander and someone proposed attacking an opposing force with a unified front, would your answer be "You're welcome to go out there and attack them yourself if you want to"? The point is to enact tax policy that applies to everyone, so that the sum total of the changes can actually make an impact. Saying "well people can always donate to the treasury" is a ridiculous way of dismissing it.

I'd actually love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars visit the war zone (though I know it's impractical). The point is that nobody will take you seriously until you show some concrete action. It's easy to claim that you'll give your money willingly, if you know that it's extremely unlikely to happen.

I'd love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars have to fight in those wars, especially if it was impractical.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#82

Post by slang800 »

komali2 wrote: post #13
jsnk wrote: post #3

Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?

I think people are taking this question in bad faith, which I understand, because I can see it come off as you essentially saying "if he wants to pay more, maybe he should voluntarily," which isn't at all in the spirit of the article. He CAN pay more, and he does donate to charity - his entire article though is about how the ultra wealthy are getting away with far too much, and society needs to step in. Non-voluntari…

> The problem is it'd vanish into a black hole

It doesn't just vanish, it reduces inflation which allows more money to be spent by congress. It would only be able to "vanish" if you were paying your taxes with a non-fiat currency.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#83

Post by komali2 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #75
komali2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are taking this question in bad faith, which I understand, because I can see it come off as you essentially saying "if he wants to pay more, maybe he should voluntarily," which isn't at all in the spirit of the article. He CAN pay more, and he does donate to charity - his entire article though is about how the ultra wealthy are getting away with far too much, and society needs to step in. Non-voluntari…

> bad faith Yeah that's my thought. 'Why don't you personally go do that and get back to us' in response to argument for collective action is a bad faith response.

>Why don't you personally go do that and get back to us

So, he did that. He works full time as a philanthropist, then came back to us with this blog post and said "I alone can't fix this, we need collective action, in the form of higher taxes on the rich."

The typical argument made by fiscal conservatives is "the philanthropists will remove the need of the welfare state." This rich philanthropist is writing this article to say "that is incorrect, it isn't enough."

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#84

Post by slang800 »

jsgo wrote: post #14
jsnk wrote: post #3

Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?

No, don't believe so (I mean, I could probably reject my income tax refunds too). But I think what they're arguing here is that as a class they feel they should pay more. While one billionaire paying extra for the Greater Good would be fine in isolation, how effective would that be in the big picture?

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Eli could dump his money into the US government and advocate for increased taxes for the rich. In fact, if he did that then he would be arguing from an even stronger position since it's obvious that he actually believes what he is saying and he's not just virtue-signaling.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#85

Post by slang800 »

komali2 wrote: post #63
slang800 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a reason why he can't do it, he's just saying that other people will need to do it too. I completely agree with him on that, he certainly can't do it alone. However, I think that he should set an example without waiting for others to join him.

What more can he do that would be considered "setting an example?" He devotes himself full-time to philanthropy.

> What more can he do that would be considered "setting an example?"

Eli can take his money and send it as a gift directly to the US government.

> He devotes himself full-time to philanthropy.

Giving money to private charity is very different from giving money to the government.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#86

Post by jelliclesfarm »

antisthenes wrote: post #73
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same logic, should we tax having babies too? Especially multiple babies. Large carbon foot print for a bonded set of genes.

Given the current state of AGW and Climate Change, taxing babies beyond replacement rate (2.1) is not a bad idea. I mean it's political suicide, but I don't see anything morally wrong with it. After all, we already subsidize babies with our taxing scheme. So you wouldn't even need to tax babies. You would just cut off the subsidy after 2 kids.

That would work too.

If we incentivize those who are childless and have shrunk their carbon foot print, that would also encourage people to make thoughtful decisions about baby making. Example: If someone didn’t have any children at all, then they should get tax free status or reduced premiums etc.

A woman increases her carbon foot print 10-20 times with every child. Medical costs and food and transport and pretty much everything is borne by the rest of us. Suspend benefits. Tax excess children and give tax breaks or retirement benefits to those who didn’t have children.

I suspect that retirement benefits would be a better incentive than tax free status. Most people hope that children would take care of them when they get older. It’s not worth the true cost of over population.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#87

Post by komali2 »

slang800 wrote: post #85
komali2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What more can he do that would be considered "setting an example?" He devotes himself full-time to philanthropy.

> What more can he do that would be considered "setting an example?" Eli can take his money and send it as a gift directly to the US government. > He devotes himself full-time to philanthropy. Giving money to private charity is very different from giving money to the government.

Ok, fine, so how much money does Eli have to give to the US government for his opinion to count, by your measure?

Because I give literally no money to the US government voluntarily, and I think the hyper-rich should be taxed more.

Why are we attacking the individual with ad hominem? His argument is sound. Philanthropy alone is not enough.

This whole time I've basically been arguing around the fact that lots of people are participating in the rhetorical fallacy known as Ad Hominem.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#88

Post by Causality1 »

antisthenes wrote: post #72
Causality1 wrote: post #30

It's always been fascinating to me that "things that poor people spend most of their money on" is subject to a sales tax but "things rich people spend most of their money on" isn't. Services from beauty shops, car repair, home maintenance and repair? Taxed. Services from lawyers and accountants? Not taxed. Buying a TV, food, gasoline? Taxed. Buying a piece of land or stocks? Not taxed.

Land is taxed yearly. Stocks are taxed in cases where you profit from their sale. Dividends are also taxed in most cases as ordinary income. I can see merit in taxing both transactions for land in stocks, but it's inaccurate to say that they aren't taxed. You can also argue that buying land is way more necessary than a TV. Everyone needs to live on a piece of land, not everyone needs (or wants) a TV.

Other "poor people" expenses are subject to both sales tax and ownership tax, like vehicles.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#89

Post by tylerhou »

youareawesome wrote: post #76
tylerhou wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the amount the US spends on welfare is a smaller fraction of the whole budget. For example, the US spends around ~$100 billion on food assistance [1]. Wikipedia estimates that all non-medical poverty assistance accounts for around $400 billion of the US budget [2]. Increasing expenditure by 10-20% (or even 5%) will almost certainly have a noticeable effect on poverty. [1] https://media.nationalpriorities…

Yeah I don't think increasing welfare is really the solution to ending poverty. Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty, not to mention the waste endemic to bureaucratic administration. How about instead of taxing individuals we tax corporations to incentivize paying their workers more?

> Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty

[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#90

Post by methodiosmel »

This assumes giving the government more money will solve the problems most individuals face. The problem is, the wealthy will survive higher taxes, but sooner or later we run out of their money and they inevitably have to tax the middle class and ultimately everyone. I don't care if the rich get taxed more, but I know I'll be next sooner or later, but society's will ensure.
Post reply on HN