6 ms·

What total utter crap. Taxes is the price you pay for a civilized society, and the US has far less taxes that most western countries, and as a result is arguabl

What total utter crap. Taxes is the price you pay for a civilized society, and the US has far less taxes that most western countries, and as a result is arguably less civilized. Millionaires whining to other millionaires in the WSJ. Spare me.

jswinghammer 16y ago
He has to make the calculation about hiring people. If he doesn't feel comfortable hiring he shouldn't. Why do you feel as though you're in a position to tell him what his reasons are or should be? Taxes take money out of the private sector and thus reduce the pool of capital for private sector job creation. Our taxes go to fund bankers and wars. That's why we're in such bad shape. If they went to build roads and bridges no one would care so much.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  If the problem is how the taxes are being spent, do you really think that not hiring is the correct solution?
- davidw 16y ago
  He's not just "making calculations about hiring people" - he's engaging in politics, and Hacker News fell for it.
  - thetrumanshow 16y ago
    To be sure. But it is nice, once in a while, to be reminded of how insane the numbers actually are.
    - gahahaha 16y ago
      Insane. Really? American taxes are VERY low by almost any measure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... You could argue that you don't get much for them, but that wouldn't be true either. Most government programs are very popular, but it is strangely still popular to hate the government. The logical disconnect there should be obvious.
      - orangecat 16y ago
        Most government programs are very popular, but it is strangely still popular to hate the government. The logical disconnect there should be obvious. Most people will enthusiastically support programs that take $2 from other people and give $1 to them. If you have lots of programs like that they're clearly wasteful in aggregate, but each individual one will have vocal supporters.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Yeah, except he's not actually calculating. He's just delivering a pre-scripted rant with a little argument to authority, "I make hiring decisions". Great, I feel better. He's paying almost as much for his end of the health insurance as the total tax take. What's he whine about? Taxes. Who's providing more bang for the buck, the health insurance company or the relevant federal, state and local governments? Does he have kids in school? Does this guy even look at his own numbers?
  - gahahaha 16y ago
    I would be very surprised if his kids go to a state school with the plebs.
    - roboneal 16y ago
      Whether his kids go to "state school" or not, he is still taxed as if they did.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        And here we find the real complaint. His tax burden compared to his health insurance is probably much higher.
- mikeryan 16y ago
  "Taxes take money out of the private sector and thus reduce the pool of capital for private sector job creation. Our taxes go to fund bankers and wars" This is a nice bit of sleight of hand but in reality our taxes that go to the gov't go back into the private sector, and according to our national debt do so at a greater rate then we take it in. Bankers and the Defense industry are in the private sector. Tax money doesn't just disappear from our economy. Heck even Mr. Bogen probably doesn't complain when he gets a contract for providing A/V systems for schools.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    There's private sector and then there's private sector. I am sure we all would agree that it is best to leave the money at the hands of the general population rather than take it from them and give it to a concentrated small elite. Besides, whether it is the private or public sector wasting money on wars it hardly makes a difference. It's the people's money and the people would rather keep it or see it used for more productive ends to benefit all and not some elite.
changhiskhan 16y ago
So a government that collects 100% of your income as taxes would create the most civilized society?
- gahahaha 16y ago
  No. (See: Laffer, Arthur)
- davidw 16y ago
  > So a government that collects 100% of your income as taxes would create the most civilized society? This is the sort of comment that drags down discussions about politics. No one is advocating that sort of thing here. In fairness, the comment changhiskhan is replying to, that US is "arguably less civilized" is quite a mouthful as well, and is the sort of thing that sets of long, fruitless flame wars that lead nowhere.
  - gahahaha 16y ago
    "arguably less civilized" Not sure I agree that it was all that inflammatory. It mas a bit tongue in cheek, but actually has a little bit truth to it. Anyway. You can take the boy out of Reddit, but not ...
  - changhiskhan 16y ago
    I was just trying to get him to clarify his point. There was nothing in his original comment that indicated he believed there was an optimum point between 0-100%. I'm at a loss as to why my comment was so much more inflammatory than his comment about the US being "arguably less civilized".
    - davidw 16y ago
      > There was nothing in his original comment that indicated he believed there was an optimum point between 0-100%. Would you really want to waste any of your time with someone who believed in either 0 or 100? They're some sort of True Believers and nothing you can say - neither facts nor logic - will dissuade them from their view. Luckily though, this community is mostly composed of cleverer folk than that, something that ought to be pretty obvious.
anamax 16y ago
> What total utter crap. Taxes is the price you pay for a civilized society, and the US has far less taxes that most western countries, Actually, it doesn't. US tax revenue per-person is pretty much in the middle of western Europe. Things look different because US GDP/person is higher and poor workers only pay for their retirement. (SS payouts are fairly progressive, so it's a good deal for the poor and sucks for those near the cap. The cap exists because we don't want rich people to care about SS and we don't want to pay $400k/year to Ross Perot. If you want to remove the cap, please tell us how you're going to deal with rich people caring about SS, which they will if benefits are capped, or if you're going to uncap the benefits as well.)
- gahahaha 16y ago
  "US tax revenue per-person is pretty much in the middle of western Europe." Not really. The OECD average is 36%, Americans pay 28% and no western European states pay less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... In nominal terms the US may be higher, but I don't really see that that proves anything. The main problem is of course that so much has to be paid for by the individual in the US that is efficiently taken care of by the state in Europe, so comparing tax rates misses a big part of the issue.
  - anamax 16y ago
    >> "US tax revenue per-person is pretty much in the middle of western Europe." > Not really. The OECD average is 36%, Americans pay 28% and no western European states pay less. Yes really. American's pay 28% on a larger number, so the amount of money per person is basically the same. BTW - you're ignoring corporate taxes, which are a significant fraction of revenues. They don't actually change the equivalence but they do increase the "revenues per person-year" number. > nominal terms the US may be higher, but I don't really see that that proves anything. Actually, it does. > The main problem is of course that so much has to be paid for by the individual in the US that is efficiently taken care of by the state in Europe, so comparing tax rates misses a big part of the issue. I'm not comparing tax rates. I'm comparing tax revenues per person. You're pointing out that western Europeans get more for the same amount of money. Combining those two facts tells us that a tax dollar goes further in western Europe than it does in the US. If the US govt wants to provide the same benefits, it either needs more money per person than European govts or it needs to take the relevant amount of money from its other expenditures.
roboneal 16y ago
"What total utter crap" passes for an up-voted "well reasoned" comment on HackerNews. Spare me please. Unlike many in the political class, this man actually PAYS his taxes and the payroll taxes of his 80+ employees in pursuit of private enterprise. Considering he has risked his own private capital to create jobs, he has earned some right to "whine" about the current trend of taxation.
endtime 16y ago
>the US has far less taxes that most western countries I own my own LLC, and lose 45% of my "salary" to taxes (in large part because I pay both 7.5% "halves" of my Medicare tax). Is that far less than it would be in most other Western countries?
- middus 16y ago
  I think you should put "lose" in quotation marks. It is not gone. The money is not gone, it is spend on you for hospitals, police, roads and what not.
  - endtime 16y ago
    I'm 24 years old...I have zero expectation of ever seeing a penny for the 15% of my salary that goes to Medicare.
- jleyank 16y ago
  That's not bad. 2x social security/medicare and you're a bit under 50%. I'm a wage-jockey in Canada, and I'm paying over 50%. So yeah, US taxes DO look like some of the lowest in the Western World.
- abalashov 16y ago
  Yep, you're right. The real problem is that for roughly the same tax burden, you don't get a fraction of what Western European or Canadian counterparts get. No socialised healthcare, no government-subsidised education, a pitiful two weeks of paid vacation at best, joke unemployment benefits, etc. I'm not necessarily arguing that any of that should be the government's job or that all aspects of it are fundamentally fiscally sustainable. I'm just pointing out that you get quite a bit less for your money; an alarming preponderance of your income tax goes to prosecuting pointless wars, Wall Street bailouts, and other suitably kleptocratic endeavours. Local and state government operations are substantially funded by sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes not even accounted for by your 45% figure; the income taxes do not yield many practical, down-on-the-ground results apart from the relatively small portion of the federal budget that goes to state-bound block grants.

jswinghammer 16y ago

He has to make the calculation about hiring people. If he doesn't feel comfortable hiring he shouldn't. Why do you feel as though you're in a position to tell him what his reasons are or should be? Taxes take money out of the private sector and thus reduce the pool of capital for private sector job creation. Our taxes go to fund bankers and wars. That's why we're in such bad shape. If they went to build roads and bridges no one would care so much.

CodeMage 16y ago
If the problem is how the taxes are being spent, do you really think that not hiring is the correct solution?
davidw 16y ago
He's not just "making calculations about hiring people" - he's engaging in politics, and Hacker News fell for it.
- thetrumanshow 16y ago
  To be sure. But it is nice, once in a while, to be reminded of how insane the numbers actually are.
  - gahahaha 16y ago
    Insane. Really? American taxes are VERY low by almost any measure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... You could argue that you don't get much for them, but that wouldn't be true either. Most government programs are very popular, but it is strangely still popular to hate the government. The logical disconnect there should be obvious.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      Most government programs are very popular, but it is strangely still popular to hate the government. The logical disconnect there should be obvious. Most people will enthusiastically support programs that take $2 from other people and give $1 to them. If you have lots of programs like that they're clearly wasteful in aggregate, but each individual one will have vocal supporters.
jbooth 16y ago
Yeah, except he's not actually calculating. He's just delivering a pre-scripted rant with a little argument to authority, "I make hiring decisions". Great, I feel better. He's paying almost as much for his end of the health insurance as the total tax take. What's he whine about? Taxes. Who's providing more bang for the buck, the health insurance company or the relevant federal, state and local governments? Does he have kids in school? Does this guy even look at his own numbers?
- gahahaha 16y ago
  I would be very surprised if his kids go to a state school with the plebs.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Whether his kids go to "state school" or not, he is still taxed as if they did.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      And here we find the real complaint. His tax burden compared to his health insurance is probably much higher.
mikeryan 16y ago
"Taxes take money out of the private sector and thus reduce the pool of capital for private sector job creation. Our taxes go to fund bankers and wars" This is a nice bit of sleight of hand but in reality our taxes that go to the gov't go back into the private sector, and according to our national debt do so at a greater rate then we take it in. Bankers and the Defense industry are in the private sector. Tax money doesn't just disappear from our economy. Heck even Mr. Bogen probably doesn't complain when he gets a contract for providing A/V systems for schools.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  There's private sector and then there's private sector. I am sure we all would agree that it is best to leave the money at the hands of the general population rather than take it from them and give it to a concentrated small elite. Besides, whether it is the private or public sector wasting money on wars it hardly makes a difference. It's the people's money and the people would rather keep it or see it used for more productive ends to benefit all and not some elite.

changhiskhan 16y ago

So a government that collects 100% of your income as taxes would create the most civilized society?

gahahaha 16y ago
No. (See: Laffer, Arthur)
davidw 16y ago
> So a government that collects 100% of your income as taxes would create the most civilized society? This is the sort of comment that drags down discussions about politics. No one is advocating that sort of thing here. In fairness, the comment changhiskhan is replying to, that US is "arguably less civilized" is quite a mouthful as well, and is the sort of thing that sets of long, fruitless flame wars that lead nowhere.
- gahahaha 16y ago
  "arguably less civilized" Not sure I agree that it was all that inflammatory. It mas a bit tongue in cheek, but actually has a little bit truth to it. Anyway. You can take the boy out of Reddit, but not ...
- changhiskhan 16y ago
  I was just trying to get him to clarify his point. There was nothing in his original comment that indicated he believed there was an optimum point between 0-100%. I'm at a loss as to why my comment was so much more inflammatory than his comment about the US being "arguably less civilized".
  - davidw 16y ago
    > There was nothing in his original comment that indicated he believed there was an optimum point between 0-100%. Would you really want to waste any of your time with someone who believed in either 0 or 100? They're some sort of True Believers and nothing you can say - neither facts nor logic - will dissuade them from their view. Luckily though, this community is mostly composed of cleverer folk than that, something that ought to be pretty obvious.

anamax 16y ago

> What total utter crap. Taxes is the price you pay for a civilized society, and the US has far less taxes that most western countries, Actually, it doesn't. US tax revenue per-person is pretty much in the middle of western Europe. Things look different because US GDP/person is higher and poor workers only pay for their retirement. (SS payouts are fairly progressive, so it's a good deal for the poor and sucks for those near the cap. The cap exists because we don't want rich people to care about SS and we don't want to pay $400k/year to Ross Perot. If you want to remove the cap, please tell us how you're going to deal with rich people caring about SS, which they will if benefits are capped, or if you're going to uncap the benefits as well.)

gahahaha 16y ago
"US tax revenue per-person is pretty much in the middle of western Europe." Not really. The OECD average is 36%, Americans pay 28% and no western European states pay less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... In nominal terms the US may be higher, but I don't really see that that proves anything. The main problem is of course that so much has to be paid for by the individual in the US that is efficiently taken care of by the state in Europe, so comparing tax rates misses a big part of the issue.
- anamax 16y ago
  >> "US tax revenue per-person is pretty much in the middle of western Europe." > Not really. The OECD average is 36%, Americans pay 28% and no western European states pay less. Yes really. American's pay 28% on a larger number, so the amount of money per person is basically the same. BTW - you're ignoring corporate taxes, which are a significant fraction of revenues. They don't actually change the equivalence but they do increase the "revenues per person-year" number. > nominal terms the US may be higher, but I don't really see that that proves anything. Actually, it does. > The main problem is of course that so much has to be paid for by the individual in the US that is efficiently taken care of by the state in Europe, so comparing tax rates misses a big part of the issue. I'm not comparing tax rates. I'm comparing tax revenues per person. You're pointing out that western Europeans get more for the same amount of money. Combining those two facts tells us that a tax dollar goes further in western Europe than it does in the US. If the US govt wants to provide the same benefits, it either needs more money per person than European govts or it needs to take the relevant amount of money from its other expenditures.

roboneal 16y ago

"What total utter crap" passes for an up-voted "well reasoned" comment on HackerNews. Spare me please. Unlike many in the political class, this man actually PAYS his taxes and the payroll taxes of his 80+ employees in pursuit of private enterprise. Considering he has risked his own private capital to create jobs, he has earned some right to "whine" about the current trend of taxation.

endtime 16y ago

>the US has far less taxes that most western countries I own my own LLC, and lose 45% of my "salary" to taxes (in large part because I pay both 7.5% "halves" of my Medicare tax). Is that far less than it would be in most other Western countries?

middus 16y ago
I think you should put "lose" in quotation marks. It is not gone. The money is not gone, it is spend on you for hospitals, police, roads and what not.
- endtime 16y ago
  I'm 24 years old...I have zero expectation of ever seeing a penny for the 15% of my salary that goes to Medicare.
jleyank 16y ago
That's not bad. 2x social security/medicare and you're a bit under 50%. I'm a wage-jockey in Canada, and I'm paying over 50%. So yeah, US taxes DO look like some of the lowest in the Western World.
abalashov 16y ago
Yep, you're right. The real problem is that for roughly the same tax burden, you don't get a fraction of what Western European or Canadian counterparts get. No socialised healthcare, no government-subsidised education, a pitiful two weeks of paid vacation at best, joke unemployment benefits, etc. I'm not necessarily arguing that any of that should be the government's job or that all aspects of it are fundamentally fiscally sustainable. I'm just pointing out that you get quite a bit less for your money; an alarming preponderance of your income tax goes to prosecuting pointless wars, Wall Street bailouts, and other suitably kleptocratic endeavours. Local and state government operations are substantially funded by sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes not even accounted for by your 45% figure; the income taxes do not yield many practical, down-on-the-ground results apart from the relatively small portion of the federal budget that goes to state-bound block grants.