6 ms·

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 establ

by 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...
    - bbctol 10y ago
      Well, the government has defended you from foreign threats, protected the monetary system that lets you earn in the first place, provided for your public education, established your infrastructure, and been a check against your home burning down or being robbed. If everyone's entitled to what they've done, what are they entitled to? Capitalism is a system, like any other, created by humans and not found in nature. "Ownership" is not some property of matter; what it means to own something is that there is a legal system that supports that deed and an armed police and military to enforce it. There is no concept of ownership except for a truly anarchic "everything I own is in a box that I have the key to" idea that does not require other people to guarantee your property rights.
    - SpikeDad 10y ago
      Oops my ass. The US economy is not booming - the US stock market is artificially inflated because investment speculators are betting that companies are going to use this obscene period in time to take advantage and do whatever they want to increase corporate profits in further concentrate the wealth in smaller and smaller circles.
- TillE 10y ago
  If you're going to that abstract level, what does the dollar amount of the money you're "earning" even mean? Everything is part of a huge system.
- jlebar 10y ago
  The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. But why? I mean, are you just rationalizing? "I think 50% taxes is a lot just because I do, therefore I think it's bad policy." Or is there a logical reason that 50% is "a bit silly" but, say, 30% (or whatever your number is) is fine? This is something that Nobel prize-winning economists fight over -- exactly how high a tax rate is too high? -- so I kind of doubt we're going to resolve it here on HN. My point is that we all have feelings ("I don't like the color mauve", "50% taxes rubs me the wrong way"), but these have to be separate from motives for enacting policy.
  - braveo 10y ago
    You're only 1/2 way away from slave labor at that point. And when you factor in other taxes, you pay more than 50%, it's too much. And if I choose not to pay those taxes, my freedom is taken away, so don't tell me the slave point is invalid.
    - esrauch 10y ago
      His point is that the same things apply to 30% tax: you are only 2/3 away from being a slave, if you don't pay your 30% your freedom is taken away. There isn't a rational difference between 30 and 50, the only difference is "I feel that it is too much", right?
      - braveo 10y ago
        There is absolutely a rational difference between 30 and 50%.
        esrauch 10y ago
        The numbers are clearly different, but not in the "one is slavery and the other is not" kind of way right?
        braveo 10y ago
- JustAnotherPat 10y ago
  what about passive income i.e. 0/60? Should that be taxed at 99% since you're not spending any time working for it? Conflating time worked with a tax rate seems like a red herring to me.
  - ferentchak 10y ago
    I always think it's interesting how we actually tax capital gains much less than normal salaries. It's weird that that income doesn't need to contribute to our society and help pay for things like Medicare but income that you work for does. My understanding is that there is some fancy economic theories that say this is the right way to do things that I don't have the knowledge to confirm nor deny. Economists aside it still feels wonky™.
zymhan 10y ago
Especially at an income level where you will be paying 50%, you should be able to save enough for the future/rainy day AND live quite comfortably.
- lap42 10y ago
  That's the problem. You should never be responsible to judge how he spends his money, that's his problem. You never know. You don't know if it was only 10%, he could use those 40% much better than the "government", oh hell, be damn sure he would. He could create companies, could fund companies, could put this money in funds, those funds would have to fund companies to earn money, these would generate jobs, education, etc.
  - zymhan 10y ago
    Man, why does everyone assume that rich people just take their money and start companies? Do you realize how risky it is to start a business? You are highly likely to lose EVERYTHING you invest, as well as ruin your reputation, if you start a business from scratch and it fails to take off. Almost all wealthy people just invest their money in stocks, hedge funds, VCs, and other intangible assets that don't immediately produce a noticeable economic impact, aside from a rise in the stock market.
    - clarky07 10y ago
      What do you think the purpose of stocks and venture funds are? They are for starting and growing businesses. He/She doesn't have to start the business themselves.
faceyspacey 10y ago
Except for here in the states 25% of the taxpayer money is going to military, intelligence and debt from past wars we know to have been bad ideas and knew all along were bad ideas. And let's just say another 25% is misspent. In a country this big and bloated, that's also likely a low ball figure. But overall, only 50% of taxpayer money is going to anything remotely properly executed and needed. That said, our public schools suck, we invest nothing in research, we don't provide healthcare until your old, and our interstate highways were built 70 years ago, and state and local governments handle needed construction now, yet they take the smallest percentage of our taxes. Some states like Nevada don't even charge state income tax. In my view I'd be way happier paying taxes if this was managed right. That means cut military spending by 90% knowing we are never going to need an aircraft carrier again while completely evacuating the Middle East, and the state local government's charge more since they will be more effective at putting it to use. Taxes should be no more than 30% total (federal, state + local) like the Apple App Store. Yea, likely not happening any time soon. But that's what is correct imho.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  Don't forget all that debt service. That's literally redistributing tax dollars to people and organizations with wealth. Paying high taxes makes more sense if debt service was rather trivial.
- monksy 10y ago
  > That said, our public schools suck, we invest nothing in research, we don't provide healthcare until your old, and our interstate highways were built 70 years ago, and state and local governments handle needed construction now, yet they take the smallest percentage of our taxes. Some states like Nevada don't even charge state income tax. Don't forget we build highways with the wrong material which causes a cheaper initial cost and higher future cost. (Concrete rather than asphalt)
- jlebar 10y ago
  On what basis do you think that you think you can write off 25% of non-military non-debt government spending? Is that just a hunch? I would suggest trying it sometime. Look at the US government budget, and try to cut out 25% of it. It is a lot harder than just getting rid of "bloat". I can believe that some people might be able to find 25% that they personally don't care about. Maybe you don't drive, so (you think) you don't care about highways. Or, you're not poor, so you don't care about medicaid. And so on. But could you cut 25% of the federal budget without causing a large fraction of the American populace to become very, very angry (and vote you out of office, git reset --hard your budget in two years, etc)? I don't mean to say that the government could not be more efficient. It certainly could. But 25% of the budget is a lot of money, and not everyone has the same priorities as you.
devy 10y ago
> How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you? Sure, if by "establishing the world around you" means government spending on fighting climate change, supporting clean energy initiatives and helping the underserved people instead of spending on wars, on weapons; AND everyone pays the same rate including our current president, then YES!
lap42 10y ago
Wrong. If he pays 50% because he wants, OK. But he is FORCED to pay. This is confiscatory payment, it's theft. Opportunities as a young person costs 50% of what he makes?! Please don't pretend to be naive. I thought it was common sense by now that this tax money goes to highly payed politicians, corruption, bad public administration, bad public programs, lazy people, etc. A 10% tax should be the maximum a citizen should pay in any country. And it will be in the future, distant future, but you can be damn sure that it will be.
- tinco 10y ago
  Wrong, they should be happy it's not 90% or 100% of what he makes. Don't be naieve, why would you deserve anything when there are people who could wipe your life away with the stroke of a pen. Don't pretend you've deserved anything you've worked for. It has been granted to you by those in power as they have seen fit. Your petty idealism has no place in the real world.
  - rajacombinator 10y ago
    I think this post was meant in sarcasm but sadly it is a more accurate reflection of the world...
    - tinco 10y ago
      I meant it as hyperrealism. It's not really constructive, just venting a little frustration with people calling me naieve.
      - SpikeDad 10y ago
        You meant is a your utopian society. People who can make money can survive. People who can't are left to die. People who can protect themselves can survive. People who can't won't. See people cheering the cutting of funding for Meals on Wheels make me want to vomit.
jjtheblunt 10y ago
The problem is that those other 30 minutes are _not_ establishing the world around the person, but rather sustaining irresponsible worlds filled by others aggravatingly often, no?
chrshawkes 10y ago
I'm sorry, no knock against you, but that's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. It starts at 35, than 40, than 45 than 50 and on and on until eventually 75% is towards everything else while your neighbor contributes nothing. Doesn't seem like a formula for success.
- tinco 10y ago
  It starts at 15% and then 30% and then 50% and then everything you do ends up in one big pot and you have communism. And your neighbour is happily doing nothing while you slave away, who is stupid then?

by tinco 10y ago

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...
  - bbctol 10y ago
    Well, the government has defended you from foreign threats, protected the monetary system that lets you earn in the first place, provided for your public education, established your infrastructure, and been a check against your home burning down or being robbed. If everyone's entitled to what they've done, what are they entitled to? Capitalism is a system, like any other, created by humans and not found in nature. "Ownership" is not some property of matter; what it means to own something is that there is a legal system that supports that deed and an armed police and military to enforce it. There is no concept of ownership except for a truly anarchic "everything I own is in a box that I have the key to" idea that does not require other people to guarantee your property rights.
  - SpikeDad 10y ago
    Oops my ass. The US economy is not booming - the US stock market is artificially inflated because investment speculators are betting that companies are going to use this obscene period in time to take advantage and do whatever they want to increase corporate profits in further concentrate the wealth in smaller and smaller circles.
TillE 10y ago
If you're going to that abstract level, what does the dollar amount of the money you're "earning" even mean? Everything is part of a huge system.
jlebar 10y ago
The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. But why? I mean, are you just rationalizing? "I think 50% taxes is a lot just because I do, therefore I think it's bad policy." Or is there a logical reason that 50% is "a bit silly" but, say, 30% (or whatever your number is) is fine? This is something that Nobel prize-winning economists fight over -- exactly how high a tax rate is too high? -- so I kind of doubt we're going to resolve it here on HN. My point is that we all have feelings ("I don't like the color mauve", "50% taxes rubs me the wrong way"), but these have to be separate from motives for enacting policy.
- braveo 10y ago
  You're only 1/2 way away from slave labor at that point. And when you factor in other taxes, you pay more than 50%, it's too much. And if I choose not to pay those taxes, my freedom is taken away, so don't tell me the slave point is invalid.
  - esrauch 10y ago
    His point is that the same things apply to 30% tax: you are only 2/3 away from being a slave, if you don't pay your 30% your freedom is taken away. There isn't a rational difference between 30 and 50, the only difference is "I feel that it is too much", right?
    - braveo 10y ago
      There is absolutely a rational difference between 30 and 50%.
      - esrauch 10y ago
        The numbers are clearly different, but not in the "one is slavery and the other is not" kind of way right?
        braveo 10y ago
JustAnotherPat 10y ago
what about passive income i.e. 0/60? Should that be taxed at 99% since you're not spending any time working for it? Conflating time worked with a tax rate seems like a red herring to me.
- ferentchak 10y ago
  I always think it's interesting how we actually tax capital gains much less than normal salaries. It's weird that that income doesn't need to contribute to our society and help pay for things like Medicare but income that you work for does. My understanding is that there is some fancy economic theories that say this is the right way to do things that I don't have the knowledge to confirm nor deny. Economists aside it still feels wonky™.

zymhan 10y ago

Especially at an income level where you will be paying 50%, you should be able to save enough for the future/rainy day AND live quite comfortably.

lap42 10y ago
That's the problem. You should never be responsible to judge how he spends his money, that's his problem. You never know. You don't know if it was only 10%, he could use those 40% much better than the "government", oh hell, be damn sure he would. He could create companies, could fund companies, could put this money in funds, those funds would have to fund companies to earn money, these would generate jobs, education, etc.
- zymhan 10y ago
  Man, why does everyone assume that rich people just take their money and start companies? Do you realize how risky it is to start a business? You are highly likely to lose EVERYTHING you invest, as well as ruin your reputation, if you start a business from scratch and it fails to take off. Almost all wealthy people just invest their money in stocks, hedge funds, VCs, and other intangible assets that don't immediately produce a noticeable economic impact, aside from a rise in the stock market.
  - clarky07 10y ago
    What do you think the purpose of stocks and venture funds are? They are for starting and growing businesses. He/She doesn't have to start the business themselves.

faceyspacey 10y ago

Except for here in the states 25% of the taxpayer money is going to military, intelligence and debt from past wars we know to have been bad ideas and knew all along were bad ideas. And let's just say another 25% is misspent. In a country this big and bloated, that's also likely a low ball figure. But overall, only 50% of taxpayer money is going to anything remotely properly executed and needed. That said, our public schools suck, we invest nothing in research, we don't provide healthcare until your old, and our interstate highways were built 70 years ago, and state and local governments handle needed construction now, yet they take the smallest percentage of our taxes. Some states like Nevada don't even charge state income tax. In my view I'd be way happier paying taxes if this was managed right. That means cut military spending by 90% knowing we are never going to need an aircraft carrier again while completely evacuating the Middle East, and the state local government's charge more since they will be more effective at putting it to use. Taxes should be no more than 30% total (federal, state + local) like the Apple App Store. Yea, likely not happening any time soon. But that's what is correct imho.

humanrebar 10y ago
Don't forget all that debt service. That's literally redistributing tax dollars to people and organizations with wealth. Paying high taxes makes more sense if debt service was rather trivial.
monksy 10y ago
> That said, our public schools suck, we invest nothing in research, we don't provide healthcare until your old, and our interstate highways were built 70 years ago, and state and local governments handle needed construction now, yet they take the smallest percentage of our taxes. Some states like Nevada don't even charge state income tax. Don't forget we build highways with the wrong material which causes a cheaper initial cost and higher future cost. (Concrete rather than asphalt)
jlebar 10y ago
On what basis do you think that you think you can write off 25% of non-military non-debt government spending? Is that just a hunch? I would suggest trying it sometime. Look at the US government budget, and try to cut out 25% of it. It is a lot harder than just getting rid of "bloat". I can believe that some people might be able to find 25% that they personally don't care about. Maybe you don't drive, so (you think) you don't care about highways. Or, you're not poor, so you don't care about medicaid. And so on. But could you cut 25% of the federal budget without causing a large fraction of the American populace to become very, very angry (and vote you out of office, git reset --hard your budget in two years, etc)? I don't mean to say that the government could not be more efficient. It certainly could. But 25% of the budget is a lot of money, and not everyone has the same priorities as you.

devy 10y ago

> How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you? Sure, if by "establishing the world around you" means government spending on fighting climate change, supporting clean energy initiatives and helping the underserved people instead of spending on wars, on weapons; AND everyone pays the same rate including our current president, then YES!

lap42 10y ago

Wrong. If he pays 50% because he wants, OK. But he is FORCED to pay. This is confiscatory payment, it's theft. Opportunities as a young person costs 50% of what he makes?! Please don't pretend to be naive. I thought it was common sense by now that this tax money goes to highly payed politicians, corruption, bad public administration, bad public programs, lazy people, etc. A 10% tax should be the maximum a citizen should pay in any country. And it will be in the future, distant future, but you can be damn sure that it will be.

tinco 10y ago
Wrong, they should be happy it's not 90% or 100% of what he makes. Don't be naieve, why would you deserve anything when there are people who could wipe your life away with the stroke of a pen. Don't pretend you've deserved anything you've worked for. It has been granted to you by those in power as they have seen fit. Your petty idealism has no place in the real world.
- rajacombinator 10y ago
  I think this post was meant in sarcasm but sadly it is a more accurate reflection of the world...
  - tinco 10y ago
    I meant it as hyperrealism. It's not really constructive, just venting a little frustration with people calling me naieve.
    - SpikeDad 10y ago
      You meant is a your utopian society. People who can make money can survive. People who can't are left to die. People who can protect themselves can survive. People who can't won't. See people cheering the cutting of funding for Meals on Wheels make me want to vomit.

jjtheblunt 10y ago

The problem is that those other 30 minutes are _not_ establishing the world around the person, but rather sustaining irresponsible worlds filled by others aggravatingly often, no?

chrshawkes 10y ago

I'm sorry, no knock against you, but that's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. It starts at 35, than 40, than 45 than 50 and on and on until eventually 75% is towards everything else while your neighbor contributes nothing. Doesn't seem like a formula for success.

tinco 10y ago
It starts at 15% and then 30% and then 50% and then everything you do ends up in one big pot and you have communism. And your neighbour is happily doing nothing while you slave away, who is stupid then?