Taxing Families Like Companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#91

Post by irrational » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #59

irrational wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

13B in revenue or profit? That is, after paying their employees, the cost of buildings and equipment, capital costs, etc. how much was left over? What percentage of that did they pay in taxes?

Are you suggesting that Amazon's revenue from customers in the United States was $13 billion in all of 2019? That's a fraction of AWS revenue, let alone their retail business.

How should I know? It could be anywhere between $13 million and $13 trillion for all I know. I’m not even sure how much I have in my own bank account.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#92

Post by bpodgursky » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #57

bpodgursky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only feel this way because you aren't paying attention to the demographics of eastern europe and east asia. If it was simply a matter of "running out of new people" it might be OK -- a gradual decrease in population of 50% over a few generation could be sustainable. That's not the issue The core problem is long lifespans creating a massively inverted age pyramid. At the extreme, the emerging pattern in urban Chin…

It would be exceedingly rare for 1 child to be economically supporting 14 ancestors. Presumably the typical period of economic support is around 25 years, meaning the 2 30 year-old parents and 4 55 year-old grandparents of the perhaps 5 year-old child would be supporting the 8 80 year-old great-grandparents (or the subset of them that are still alive). 6 adults supporting <= 8 seems much less dire than 1 supporting 1…

That is still incredibly dire, given the very important point you're omitting -- that 6 adults need to be supporting children!

Raising children as it is, is expensive and time-consuming, to the point that adults feel incapable of doing so. Bundling that many adults onto the care model is absolutely insane.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#93

Post by Krisjohn » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

> This is not to suggest that corporations should be taxed on their revenue, or that we should dramatically increase corporate taxes.

Then you're missing an opportunity.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#94

Post by sokoloff » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 12:42 AM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #92

sokoloff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be exceedingly rare for 1 child to be economically supporting 14 ancestors. Presumably the typical period of economic support is around 25 years, meaning the 2 30 year-old parents and 4 55 year-old grandparents of the perhaps 5 year-old child would be supporting the 8 80 year-old great-grandparents (or the subset of them that are still alive). 6 adults supporting <= 8 seems much less dire than 1 supporting 1…

That is still incredibly dire, given the very important point you're omitting -- that 6 adults need to be supporting children! Raising children as it is, is expensive and time-consuming, to the point that adults feel incapable of doing so. Bundling that many adults onto the care model is absolutely insane.

In this example, there is only 1 child to support. That was the hypothetical that you proposed upthread.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#95

Post by moltar » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 12:51 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #84

encoderer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re talking about why we can’t treat corporations like families with higher tax rates. To me the more interesting question is more about treating families like corporations. We had a nanny for a year. She made about $50k, but I had to pay her with after-tax income so the actual cost of the nanny was closer to $70k of my pretax income. This is the precise double taxation you’re talking about. Yes, higher income peo…

That’s because a nanny is a luxury, not a necessity. There’s lots of people who figure it out without a nanny. There is a deduction for child care and it should be higher, but there’s no reason why your $50k nanny expenditure should be tax exempt. This is what I meant by tax policies that would favor the rich. You’re trying to figure out how to deduct a larger amount than millions of people make. That wouldn’t be fai…

If you look at it in the context of a company, then nanny is just an employee. If a company can have more revenue by employing a nanny then why not?

It’s like saying having an office janitor is a luxury.

It’s just a function, like any other, that leverages time.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#96

Post by encoderer » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #84

encoderer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re talking about why we can’t treat corporations like families with higher tax rates. To me the more interesting question is more about treating families like corporations. We had a nanny for a year. She made about $50k, but I had to pay her with after-tax income so the actual cost of the nanny was closer to $70k of my pretax income. This is the precise double taxation you’re talking about. Yes, higher income peo…

That’s because a nanny is a luxury, not a necessity. There’s lots of people who figure it out without a nanny. There is a deduction for child care and it should be higher, but there’s no reason why your $50k nanny expenditure should be tax exempt. This is what I meant by tax policies that would favor the rich. You’re trying to figure out how to deduct a larger amount than millions of people make. That wouldn’t be fai…

That’s one take.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#97

Post by xapata » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 2:27 AM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #76

xapata wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's unconvincing about UBI? What'd you think of the 2020 unemployment benefits?

I think it is untenable to basically tell great swathes of the population that they are unnecessary to the economy but here’s some cash for you. I don’t think it is good for the psyche to be put in such a position. I’m sure proponents of UBI have claims that it will provide a safety net allowing people to start businesses or do what they want with their lives but I think assuming it will work for everyone is wishful…

> unnecessary to the economy

I don't think that's the message of UBI. While one could view it somewhat as a charitable policy, with a more cold outlook it's a good policy as a mechanism to make free-market capitalism function more robustly. Think of it like re-balancing your portfolio. Some people don't like calling humans capital or assets, saying that's cold-hearted. If you don't mind that word choice, then it's relatively easy to explain UBI as promoting the long-term health of the economy. Contrary to the message of "unnecessary to the economy," UBI is important precisely because the recipients are critical to the health of the economy.

> assuming it will work for everyone

I don't think most people think it will work for everyone. Almost no policy is perfect.

> It’d surely be hard to build a democracy on such a divide

Yes, that's what people were discovering in the late 19th century and early 20th century, and why many capitalist democracies began adopting anti-trust laws and social programs. For example, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Social Security Act in the US. I expect that UBI will have the opposite effect that you expect, helping alleviate inequality.

> I don’t know about the 2020 unemployment benefits as I don’t live in the US.

They turned out to be a good policy. Despite fears that people would choose to not work, because they were receiving more money to stay at home, wages did not rise and job openings did not spike. On average. Some differences across industries and locations, of course.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#98

Post by prepend » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

moltar wrote: post #95

prepend wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because a nanny is a luxury, not a necessity. There’s lots of people who figure it out without a nanny. There is a deduction for child care and it should be higher, but there’s no reason why your $50k nanny expenditure should be tax exempt. This is what I meant by tax policies that would favor the rich. You’re trying to figure out how to deduct a larger amount than millions of people make. That wouldn’t be fai…

If you look at it in the context of a company, then nanny is just an employee. If a company can have more revenue by employing a nanny then why not? It’s like saying having an office janitor is a luxury. It’s just a function, like any other, that leverages time.

And I was using it to illustrate the problem of treating individuals like corporations for this purposes. A company is not allowed to hire a nanny for an individual because it’s not essential, but an office janitor is.

The difference between childcare and nanny is huge. Treating individuals like companies for tax purposes would be super regressive and a benefit to the rich that would not apply to the poor.

Daycare costs $5-25k/year and that’s lots less than a nanny. Why should other taxpayers subsidize your nanny preference?

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#99

Post by xapata » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

encoderer wrote: post #66

xapata wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. However, because marginal rate differs by year, now we need to know what year's money that nanny's wage is being paid out of to make that 50 vs 70 calculation.

This is a solved problem called accrual accounting.

I'm not familiar with that. Sounds like more complexity for my taxes. I'd rather things get simpler. My proposal is a flat federal value-added tax, its revenue distributed weekly in uniform amounts to each domestically-residing citizen's federal debit card account.

Re: Taxing Families Like Companies

#100

Post by tacocataco » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 6:51 AM UTC

pydry wrote: post #31

bpodgursky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only feel this way because you aren't paying attention to the demographics of eastern europe and east asia. If it was simply a matter of "running out of new people" it might be OK -- a gradual decrease in population of 50% over a few generation could be sustainable. That's not the issue The core problem is long lifespans creating a massively inverted age pyramid. At the extreme, the emerging pattern in urban Chin…

If you look at dependency ratios since the 1950s they really haven't changed a massive amount (the elderly and children both need to be cared for) and the change has been linear and largely compensated for by economic growth. What is crushing us is economic inequality - that change is geometric and has been the real driver of anemic fertility. Who wants to start a family under mountains of debt on a gig job wage? Not…

While full automation might not happen in my lifetime, it will for sure happen in my theoretical children's life.

Considering how the working class is treated while our labor is essential for the economy, I highly doubt we will get better treatment after full automation. When we are "useless eaters".