8 ms·

"Nobody likes paying high taxes, but I don’t mind." I think there's an important distinction to be made between two different sorts of "high taxes". One is a

by rsync 10y ago

"Nobody likes paying high taxes, but I don’t mind." I think there's an important distinction to be made between two different sorts of "high taxes". One is a high absolute amount of taxes - you made millions of dollars in a year and therefore your absolute tax payment is relatively quite high. The other is a high percentage tax rate. I don't mind paying a high absolute rate of taxes - I think that is the scenario in which one can think fondly of all the things that government provides - things like: "It's a repayment for all those years I was poor and the government paid for me to live and go to school." However, there comes a point in percentage tax rates where basic fairness comes into question. I'm sure it varies from person to person, but I think an effective tax rate north of 40% is getting in the danger zone. As a US citizen who lives in California, in Marin, and owns land, my effective tax rate is 50%, give or take, and I think that's a problem. It's very difficult to rationalize that every 60 minutes I work, ~30 minutes of that work product is appropriated by government.

guyzero 10y ago
You could move. Oh, what's that, Marin is really great and a lot better than taking the tax cut and moving to rural Nevada? Exactly.
digler999 10y ago
I agree with you. The poor can be affected by this as well, in the case of fines. A $150 speeding ticket isn't more of an inconvenience to most of us, but a poor person could be ruined by it. Nobody should escape consequences entirely, but I think the poor should be given some exemption from the governments iron-fist policy with fines, penalty fees, and bench warrants when you dont pay them.
- m_eiman 10y ago
  There's a simple solution: here in Scandinavia at lot of monetary punishments are based on your income. E.g. your speeding ticket costs you a week's pay. (Yes, tax evaders get off too easy with this system)
tinco 10y ago
every 60 minutes I work, ~30 minutes of that work product is appropriated by government How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you? From the opportunities you had as a young person, and those of your children, to the safety and security of your adult life. Half of your product is yours to spend freely, the rest goes towards the idea that you don't even have to think about mashlovs piramid. Well in a perfect euro-socialist utopia maybe, perhaps not in the U.S., but that's the general idea of high taxes.
- rsync 10y ago
  "How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you?" I am perfectly happy to look at it that way, and indeed I do. Please don't deploy the "I'm arguing with the anti-tax guy" toolkit here - I am not that guy. The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. YMMV.
  - jchrisa 10y ago
    That's the American right propaganda sinking in. Times of higher tax burden have been economically more productive. It's already the government's money. Redistributive taxation is parsimonious use of funds. Great chart in here about USA tax burden being below average: https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2016/ https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2...
    - lap42 10y ago
      Right propaganda or freedom propaganda? You are entitled of what you've done, period. Anything above 10% is theft. "Times of higher tax burden have been economically more productive" -> this is just false, a falacy. Prove it somehow. Sweden was a very rich nation before high taxes, now it's just rich, net jobs after high taxation in 50 years is ZERO. They are just letting go now, cutting taxes more and more. I wonder why US economy is booming right now, maybe because Trump is going to cut taxes?! Oops...
the_gastropod 10y ago
> my effective tax rate is 50% For this to be true, your income must be in the realm of $10 Million / year. If that's the case, congratulations—that is phenomenal. But pardon me for not crying you a river ;-)
- kion 10y ago
  Not if you include CA state taxes and property taxes. You can pretty easily hit 50% somewhere north of 250k, which for a 2 income household in the bay isn't outlandish.
- rsync 10y ago
  "For this to be true, your income must be in the realm of $10 Million / year." No, the threshold is lower than that. Of course I don't count assessed property tax, since that is based on assets, not income. But I do count parcel taxes[1] which occur per-parcel, regardless of value. USA + CA + Marin County. Note, I am not losing sleep over any of this and I don't identify myself as anti-tax, by any means. I just think it's worth considering that a qualitative change in taxation has occurred once you go north of the 40% number. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcel_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcel_tax
  - the_gastropod 10y ago
    Ahhh. I'd never ever heard of Parcel Tax. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected!
costcopizza 10y ago
I guess you could rationalize that with: During my 60 minutes of work I was able to: breath clean air, have potable water, be surrounded by an orderly society, and in the event of danger have access to emergency services.
- coredog64 10y ago
  I'd counter that all of that together represents a very small portion of that 50% overall tax rate.
  - zymhan 10y ago
    Well, you also got to wage wars in various countries via drones and residual troop deployments and special operations. That takes up quite a bit. Also, you got to enjoy having a basic pension after retirement, as well as free healthcare for the elderly and poor. Who wants to live in a country with a bunch of poor and old sick people who can't afford food and healthcare? That sounds depressing as hell.
    - Scea91 10y ago
      If you are in high a tax bracket you are actually paying way more to pension than you get back. If you saved the money yourself you would be better off.
      - zymhan 10y ago
        Sure, but I believe in a progressive tax structure, so allowing wealthier folk to contribute even more to their retirement isn't anywhere near my top concern. The amount of money you need to live on decreases relative to your income, as your income goes up. A wealthy person doesn't contribute 30%+ of their monthly income to housing, typically, nor could they come anywhere near spending that amount on food. But a poor family of 4 certainly could.
        lap42 10y ago
psranga 10y ago
Is 50% your ETR if you only look at INCOME taxes (federal and state)? If so, you're probably an extreme outlier. Or are you including payroll "taxes" (social security, medicare), sales taxes etc also? IIUC, if you add up health insurance premiums (employer share + employee share) + all income taxes + all payroll taxes of US and compare it to the same quantity of other DEVELOPED countries, the tax burden on the US is not unreasonably high. Keeping a developed country developed is hard/expensive. :)
kion 10y ago
So don't look at it as percentages. Look at it as a question of how comfortable is your situation. I'm in roughly the same position as you tax wise. We pay slightly less, about 48%, to taxes of one form or another. However we're comfortable. Minus the mortgage we're debt free, our lifestyle isn't extravagant but we rarely can't do or have the things we want due to money. Solidly upper-middle-class (for SF). I'm perfectly happy to pay more than most to support others, because I make more than most in income. I can't honestly say that in my day-to-day life I work harder than the person delivering the mail, or someone unloading crates. I was given the advantage of good and cheap education and a safe environment to grow up in (Marin) due in part to high taxes on the wealthy. I feel it's important to do what I can to return the favor. I also strongly believe that those above a certain threshold of wealth, especially those who hoard that wealth, are doing damage to the economy through income inequality. If taxes are the means to undo some of that damage then again, I'm happy to contribute.
tmaly 10y ago
I feel the same. I would have no problem with this rate, but I would like to see some things done better. How money is spent, how gov contracts are given out. It feels like there is a huge amount of money lost on inefficient markets and efforts.
- jlebar 10y ago
  It feels like there is a huge amount of money lost on inefficient markets and efforts. It's a feeling. But is it reality? That's a question for spreadsheets and numbers, not our feelings. Are there countries that are 25% more efficient in government spending than the US? If so, how do they do it?
  - tmaly 10y ago
    Just look at the cost overruns for the F-35 Joint strike fighter. This one project cost us a trillion dollars
alkonaut 10y ago
> I think an effective tax rate north of 40% is getting in the danger zone. I think it varies mostly depending on the services you get for it and the percieved values of it. If you get higher education, healthcare and very social safety net possible then you tolerate a higher tax level, presumably. If the tax is percieved as being spent on things you don't agree with (some random war etc) then it's harder to accept. > It's very difficult to rationalize that every 60 minutes I work, ~30 minutes of that work product is appropriated by government. If you consider that money to be appropriated then obviously there is a political problem. The money isn't spent on the services you need or want, or it's (seems to you at least) a lot of it is wasted. But there is no point discussing an absolute limit of fairness without discussing which tax paid services you would like to cut in order to lower taxes. Taxes could be 90% or 99% and there would be nothing inherently unfair about it - it would just proably be a very inefficient society.
patrickg_zill 10y ago
I agree and think that total tax rates should be capped at a far lower amount. At some point in running your own business you realize that large portions of the tax code exist to throttle back the rate of growth of smaller companies while giving away money (tax breaks etc.) to large behemoths.
dalore 10y ago
Isn't it 50% above a certain level. So your first hour worked you're not paying 50% to the govt, but your last hour worked you are.

by rsync 10y ago

guyzero 10y ago

You could move. Oh, what's that, Marin is really great and a lot better than taking the tax cut and moving to rural Nevada? Exactly.

digler999 10y ago

I agree with you. The poor can be affected by this as well, in the case of fines. A $150 speeding ticket isn't more of an inconvenience to most of us, but a poor person could be ruined by it. Nobody should escape consequences entirely, but I think the poor should be given some exemption from the governments iron-fist policy with fines, penalty fees, and bench warrants when you dont pay them.

m_eiman 10y ago
There's a simple solution: here in Scandinavia at lot of monetary punishments are based on your income. E.g. your speeding ticket costs you a week's pay. (Yes, tax evaders get off too easy with this system)

tinco 10y ago

every 60 minutes I work, ~30 minutes of that work product is appropriated by government How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you? From the opportunities you had as a young person, and those of your children, to the safety and security of your adult life. Half of your product is yours to spend freely, the rest goes towards the idea that you don't even have to think about mashlovs piramid. Well in a perfect euro-socialist utopia maybe, perhaps not in the U.S., but that's the general idea of high taxes.

rsync 10y ago
"How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you?" I am perfectly happy to look at it that way, and indeed I do. Please don't deploy the "I'm arguing with the anti-tax guy" toolkit here - I am not that guy. The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. YMMV.
- jchrisa 10y ago
  That's the American right propaganda sinking in. Times of higher tax burden have been economically more productive. It's already the government's money. Redistributive taxation is parsimonious use of funds. Great chart in here about USA tax burden being below average: https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2016/ https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2...
  - lap42 10y ago
    Right propaganda or freedom propaganda? You are entitled of what you've done, period. Anything above 10% is theft. "Times of higher tax burden have been economically more productive" -> this is just false, a falacy. Prove it somehow. Sweden was a very rich nation before high taxes, now it's just rich, net jobs after high taxation in 50 years is ZERO. They are just letting go now, cutting taxes more and more. I wonder why US economy is booming right now, maybe because Trump is going to cut taxes?! Oops...

the_gastropod 10y ago

> my effective tax rate is 50% For this to be true, your income must be in the realm of $10 Million / year. If that's the case, congratulations—that is phenomenal. But pardon me for not crying you a river ;-)

kion 10y ago
Not if you include CA state taxes and property taxes. You can pretty easily hit 50% somewhere north of 250k, which for a 2 income household in the bay isn't outlandish.
rsync 10y ago
"For this to be true, your income must be in the realm of $10 Million / year." No, the threshold is lower than that. Of course I don't count assessed property tax, since that is based on assets, not income. But I do count parcel taxes[1] which occur per-parcel, regardless of value. USA + CA + Marin County. Note, I am not losing sleep over any of this and I don't identify myself as anti-tax, by any means. I just think it's worth considering that a qualitative change in taxation has occurred once you go north of the 40% number. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcel_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcel_tax
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  Ahhh. I'd never ever heard of Parcel Tax. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected!

costcopizza 10y ago

I guess you could rationalize that with: During my 60 minutes of work I was able to: breath clean air, have potable water, be surrounded by an orderly society, and in the event of danger have access to emergency services.

coredog64 10y ago
I'd counter that all of that together represents a very small portion of that 50% overall tax rate.
- zymhan 10y ago
  Well, you also got to wage wars in various countries via drones and residual troop deployments and special operations. That takes up quite a bit. Also, you got to enjoy having a basic pension after retirement, as well as free healthcare for the elderly and poor. Who wants to live in a country with a bunch of poor and old sick people who can't afford food and healthcare? That sounds depressing as hell.
  - Scea91 10y ago
    If you are in high a tax bracket you are actually paying way more to pension than you get back. If you saved the money yourself you would be better off.
    - zymhan 10y ago
      Sure, but I believe in a progressive tax structure, so allowing wealthier folk to contribute even more to their retirement isn't anywhere near my top concern. The amount of money you need to live on decreases relative to your income, as your income goes up. A wealthy person doesn't contribute 30%+ of their monthly income to housing, typically, nor could they come anywhere near spending that amount on food. But a poor family of 4 certainly could.
      - lap42 10y ago

psranga 10y ago

Is 50% your ETR if you only look at INCOME taxes (federal and state)? If so, you're probably an extreme outlier. Or are you including payroll "taxes" (social security, medicare), sales taxes etc also? IIUC, if you add up health insurance premiums (employer share + employee share) + all income taxes + all payroll taxes of US and compare it to the same quantity of other DEVELOPED countries, the tax burden on the US is not unreasonably high. Keeping a developed country developed is hard/expensive. :)

kion 10y ago

So don't look at it as percentages. Look at it as a question of how comfortable is your situation. I'm in roughly the same position as you tax wise. We pay slightly less, about 48%, to taxes of one form or another. However we're comfortable. Minus the mortgage we're debt free, our lifestyle isn't extravagant but we rarely can't do or have the things we want due to money. Solidly upper-middle-class (for SF). I'm perfectly happy to pay more than most to support others, because I make more than most in income. I can't honestly say that in my day-to-day life I work harder than the person delivering the mail, or someone unloading crates. I was given the advantage of good and cheap education and a safe environment to grow up in (Marin) due in part to high taxes on the wealthy. I feel it's important to do what I can to return the favor. I also strongly believe that those above a certain threshold of wealth, especially those who hoard that wealth, are doing damage to the economy through income inequality. If taxes are the means to undo some of that damage then again, I'm happy to contribute.

tmaly 10y ago

I feel the same. I would have no problem with this rate, but I would like to see some things done better. How money is spent, how gov contracts are given out. It feels like there is a huge amount of money lost on inefficient markets and efforts.

jlebar 10y ago
It feels like there is a huge amount of money lost on inefficient markets and efforts. It's a feeling. But is it reality? That's a question for spreadsheets and numbers, not our feelings. Are there countries that are 25% more efficient in government spending than the US? If so, how do they do it?
- tmaly 10y ago
  Just look at the cost overruns for the F-35 Joint strike fighter. This one project cost us a trillion dollars

alkonaut 10y ago

> I think an effective tax rate north of 40% is getting in the danger zone. I think it varies mostly depending on the services you get for it and the percieved values of it. If you get higher education, healthcare and very social safety net possible then you tolerate a higher tax level, presumably. If the tax is percieved as being spent on things you don't agree with (some random war etc) then it's harder to accept. > It's very difficult to rationalize that every 60 minutes I work, ~30 minutes of that work product is appropriated by government. If you consider that money to be appropriated then obviously there is a political problem. The money isn't spent on the services you need or want, or it's (seems to you at least) a lot of it is wasted. But there is no point discussing an absolute limit of fairness without discussing which tax paid services you would like to cut in order to lower taxes. Taxes could be 90% or 99% and there would be nothing inherently unfair about it - it would just proably be a very inefficient society.

patrickg_zill 10y ago

I agree and think that total tax rates should be capped at a far lower amount. At some point in running your own business you realize that large portions of the tax code exist to throttle back the rate of growth of smaller companies while giving away money (tax breaks etc.) to large behemoths.

dalore 10y ago

Isn't it 50% above a certain level. So your first hour worked you're not paying 50% to the govt, but your last hour worked you are.