3 ms·

The trade is this: if you made $100 and your marginal tax rate is 20%, you can either (a) let the government spend $20 however it sees fit and you spend $80 how

The trade is this: if you made $100 and your marginal tax rate is 20%, you can either (a) let the government spend $20 however it sees fit and you spend $80 however you see fit (which may be an $80 bottle of wine); or (b) you spend $100 on any charitable cause you see fit (which must meet certain requirements). That doesn't seem like a bad trade to me, especially since rich people have fairly low marginal tax rates.

kuschku 11y ago
And that’s how the US ends up with horrible roads, transit quality going down, and so on.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  The roads are pretty good around my area. Maybe that's because I voted for a small local tax increase for that purpose. Assuming your correct, it probably has a lot of other contributing factors. The federal government gets by far the largest share of tax revenue, but a lot of transportation issues are felt more at the state and local level. I doubt transportation problems are due to a lack of federal tax revenue. Keep in mind most governments in the world are smaller than a big US state. Incentives and priorities get distorted a lot when you have one entity responsible for trillions of dollars of annual expenditures.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Terrible roads seem far too local of a problem to be due to philanthropic billionaires diverting wealth. Quality seems to vary distinctly by county or city; I once lived near a city line where the line was demarcated by the abrupt transition from flawless asphalt to a minefield of potholes. Neither was a particularly famous, wealthy, or powerful county, and neither had resident billionaires. No, I'm more suspicious of measures like California's Prop 13, as well as county and city level management.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, tax loopholes in general lead to less taxes. Which leads to budget cuts. For example, look what happened in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-cameron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-c...

kuschku 11y ago

And that’s how the US ends up with horrible roads, transit quality going down, and so on.

jeffdavis 11y ago
The roads are pretty good around my area. Maybe that's because I voted for a small local tax increase for that purpose. Assuming your correct, it probably has a lot of other contributing factors. The federal government gets by far the largest share of tax revenue, but a lot of transportation issues are felt more at the state and local level. I doubt transportation problems are due to a lack of federal tax revenue. Keep in mind most governments in the world are smaller than a big US state. Incentives and priorities get distorted a lot when you have one entity responsible for trillions of dollars of annual expenditures.
sliverstorm 11y ago
Terrible roads seem far too local of a problem to be due to philanthropic billionaires diverting wealth. Quality seems to vary distinctly by county or city; I once lived near a city line where the line was demarcated by the abrupt transition from flawless asphalt to a minefield of potholes. Neither was a particularly famous, wealthy, or powerful county, and neither had resident billionaires. No, I'm more suspicious of measures like California's Prop 13, as well as county and city level management.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, tax loopholes in general lead to less taxes. Which leads to budget cuts. For example, look what happened in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-cameron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-c...