4 ms·

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 t

by 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
        We as a society went to war with companies over how much time they can require of us. Nowadays companies can only require us to work roughly 23% of the hours in a week. 50% is 84 hours/week, we as a society have already deemed the difference between those to be significant enough to fight about. The difference between 50% of your income and 30% of your income is significant.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  No, you're just 1/2 away from the point where your return on investment is not justified. And that's fine; there's a lot of perfectly valid reasons a situations where working is not worth it.
- undersuit 10y ago
  >You're only 1/2 way away from slave labor at that point. No one getting taxed at an effective 50% tax rate in the United States is anywhere near a slave. The minimum wage McDonald's worker with a 15% tax rate is the slave.
rsync 10y ago
"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?" No, I don't think I am rationalizing or being irrational. Note: I don't make any claims to know what the right overall tax rate is - if you're asking me about 32% vs. 38% vs. 29% ... I am as lost as you, and those economists, are. However I think that 1/2 is not an arbitrary point on that scale - I think there is a qualitative difference between more than one half and less than one half. If I am assessed more than one half of what I earn, that's unfair in a way that I believe appeals to innate concepts of fairness that we all share, rather than "I just don't like that number".
lap42 10y ago
Laffer Curve. 10% will be enough in the future, except for those countries in war, like US always will be.

by jlebar 10y ago

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
      We as a society went to war with companies over how much time they can require of us. Nowadays companies can only require us to work roughly 23% of the hours in a week. 50% is 84 hours/week, we as a society have already deemed the difference between those to be significant enough to fight about. The difference between 50% of your income and 30% of your income is significant.
Daishiman 10y ago
No, you're just 1/2 away from the point where your return on investment is not justified. And that's fine; there's a lot of perfectly valid reasons a situations where working is not worth it.
undersuit 10y ago
>You're only 1/2 way away from slave labor at that point. No one getting taxed at an effective 50% tax rate in the United States is anywhere near a slave. The minimum wage McDonald's worker with a 15% tax rate is the slave.

rsync 10y ago

"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?" No, I don't think I am rationalizing or being irrational. Note: I don't make any claims to know what the right overall tax rate is - if you're asking me about 32% vs. 38% vs. 29% ... I am as lost as you, and those economists, are. However I think that 1/2 is not an arbitrary point on that scale - I think there is a qualitative difference between more than one half and less than one half. If I am assessed more than one half of what I earn, that's unfair in a way that I believe appeals to innate concepts of fairness that we all share, rather than "I just don't like that number".

lap42 10y ago

Laffer Curve. 10% will be enough in the future, except for those countries in war, like US always will be.