11 ms·

I really liked that people voted with their wallets. I funded $10/month to a couple of people and pulled everything out. I'm glad they reversed the fee. Will st

by nojvek 9y ago

I really liked that people voted with their wallets. I funded $10/month to a couple of people and pulled everything out. I'm glad they reversed the fee. Will start funding again. I wish we could all do the same with our taxes to make a point to GOP.

tartuffe78 9y ago
You mean the party pushing for tax cuts?
- acqq 9y ago
  > You mean the party pushing for tax cuts ..." for the rich and the corporations and on the costs of the public services."
- wnevets 9y ago
  >You mean the party pushing for tax cuts for the very rich? ftfy
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  They're raising them for Californians
  - losteric 9y ago
    They're raising them for everyone except the rich.
    - lurr 9y ago
      I dunno, every calculator I've looked at says I get a bit back. But that's just for me, and it's the simplest look at the rules. I may get screwed on some other tax, others might as well. I also live in a state with no income tax. (WA)
      - losteric 9y ago
        Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. Accruing $1 trillion national debt just kicks the burden to the next generation, as does gutting public services to fill the gap. I also live in Washington, and honestly it's rather disgusting that we don't pay any income tax... our overreliance on property taxes is inefficient and leads to systemic funding problems for some programs.
        lurr 9y ago
        > Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. I didn't realize I in any way implied I'm in favour of the tax bill.
    - adventured 9y ago
      That's blatantly false. They're doubling the standard deduction, which will cut taxes for the majority of all middle-class tax payers. Most of the middle class pays no or little in the way of net income taxes as it is, with 85%-90% of all income taxes being paid by the top 20% income bracket. The tax cuts the middle class will receive, will drive their net income taxes that much closer to zero. 85% of all the value of the SALT / local income tax deduction goes to people making over $100,000 per year. 97% of all home owners own homes worth less than the new proposed cap on mortgage interest deduction. Both of those tax increases will almost exclusively hit well-off people.
      - grey-sunshine 9y ago
        I think he was being sarcastic.
  - Shivetya 9y ago
    why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. this change is good because it will bring the methods of taxation, the value of taxes taken in, and their usage, to light. far too often high taxation states have lived with the idea that the rich won't complaint too much since they can deduct a large portion from their federal taxes. yet all those not rich enough to itemize got stuffed. people need to understand that deductions of state, real estate, and similar taxes, only serves the wealthy. Yet oddly the very same people who complain about the wealthy and taxes instantly pivot when they learn how its all done and that they will be affected. We are the rich, the vast majority posting here make far more than the average if not in multiples. people think it takes millions to be rich, but its not true when you look at the numbers.
    - lazyasciiart 9y ago
      Why should states like California finance the federal government's handouts to other states that refuse to actually tax their own population, do you mean? And why are you ok with the federal government financing states that use property taxes, but not other types?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. It should be neutral to them, which is why State/local taxes should be deductible; non-deductibility creates an artificial incentive to avoid tax-funded programs that are a net economic benefit before considering the distortion produced by federal taxation. A longer write-up and worked example of how this is a problem that I wrote in an earlier discussion of the tax plan is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955
    - marshray 9y ago
      > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens The underlying assumption to your question is that the money belonged to the government in the first place. By that logic, you go to work, produce economic value, various levels of government take what they want, and you receive whatever is left at their pleasure. That's your income: whatever part they decide to let you have after they're done dividing up the money that your employer desired to pay to you. Thus by not "allowing you to deduct" taxes paid, one level of government is literally trying to tax you for money that has been taken by another before you got any of it.
rebuilder 9y ago
You could organize a taxpayer's strike. Obviously not paying your taxes is illegal, so it's a risky move. If you get enough people to join your strike, you'll probably have a lot of leverage. But good luck getting enough strikers.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  Companies do that all the time, that's why Apple is "striking a deal with Ireland" rather than having execs and accountants go to jail. How does the proverb go again? If you owe the bank fifty thousand dollars you have a problem, if you owe the bank fifty million dollars the bank has a problem?
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    Tax evasion is not paying taxes on income you know you should pay taxes on and is unambiguously illegal. Tax avoidance is structuring your income so as to pay as little tax as is legally possible. The first is legal, and done in secret. The second is legal and done quite openly. A tax strike is illegal and done openly in an effort to get other people to do the same illegal thing openly. Neither tax evasion nor tax avoidance. Apple is not striking a deal with Ireland nor does it want to. The European Court of Justice has ruled that Ireland’s tax policy constitutes state aid and Apple should pay more tax. Ireland and Apple both disagree and are appealing the ruling. Until such time as the appeal is ruled on the money is being held in escrow.
  - cosmie 9y ago
    Ireland would much rather keep its word with Apple and not make them pay anything more than previously agreed to, but the EU is forcing its hand. The only deal being struck is between the EU and Ireland to make Apple pay additional tax that Ireland says Apple doesn’t owe, and it’s more of a threat from the EU than an actual deal.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I had cancelled my pledges and re-added them all today (and added one even). I know unfortunately a lot of creators will never get back a good chunk of their pledges, but I feel it's important for us to both revoke our money when a company makes a bad decision... and resume it when they make a good one. Companies recognizing that good decisions make them money is the key. If they figure they're going to lose money no matter what they do, they're less likely to take our feedback into account.
- Jpoechill 9y ago
  Cancelled a subscription I had myself, looks like I'll have to renew. yipes
pjc50 9y ago
This actually worked in the UK with the "poll tax": a widespread boycott rendered it unworkable and eventually caused reform.
- distances 9y ago
  Also in Finland: a new additional tax on motorcycles was canceled after citizens removed so many motorcycles from the registry that the new tax with fewer motorcycles was going to bring in less revenue than the status quo before the law proposal.
  - brailsafe 9y ago
    In a mostly unrelated sidenote, I'd love to experiment with this in a simulation of my hometown. The city is pathetically dependent on cars in it's culture and urban planning. I'd find it interesting to apply crazy taxation to automobiles with all of the revenue being funneled into public transport.
delibes 9y ago
I like it. You need a good slogan for the media. How about something like ... err ... "No taxation without representation" ? Nah, it'll never work.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Congress and Senate voting on a tax scheme is exactly not "taxation without representation"...
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    If I didn't vote for them, and they vote diametrically to my views, they do NOT represent me. Just because mob mentality vote says X candidate wins means little. Especially if we were to hold to the initial representation in the constitution of 30k people per representative. But that number has ossified at 535 for how long now?
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      That's not what representation means. They may not represent your viewpoint, but they do very much represent you and all the other constituents within their region. I'm never quite sure what people who make these kinds of arguments as you did are attempting or hoping to achieve. It's trivially impossible to represent every single viewpoint within a constituency with anything other than direct voting. So that's fine if you want to advocate for direct voting, but just come out and say it. Otherwise, any other system involves intermediate representation, which will then have this exact problem.
      - lurr 9y ago
        Except the president clearly doesn't represent the will of the people, as evidenced by his loss in the popular vote. So how is this at all justifiable?
        PhasmaFelis 9y ago
dang 9y ago
All: please try to avoid going into partisan rabbitholes. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15916464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15916464 and marked it off-topic.

by nojvek 9y ago

tartuffe78 9y ago

You mean the party pushing for tax cuts?

acqq 9y ago
> You mean the party pushing for tax cuts ..." for the rich and the corporations and on the costs of the public services."
wnevets 9y ago
>You mean the party pushing for tax cuts for the very rich? ftfy
nerfhammer 9y ago
They're raising them for Californians
- losteric 9y ago
  They're raising them for everyone except the rich.
  - lurr 9y ago
    I dunno, every calculator I've looked at says I get a bit back. But that's just for me, and it's the simplest look at the rules. I may get screwed on some other tax, others might as well. I also live in a state with no income tax. (WA)
    - losteric 9y ago
      Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. Accruing $1 trillion national debt just kicks the burden to the next generation, as does gutting public services to fill the gap. I also live in Washington, and honestly it's rather disgusting that we don't pay any income tax... our overreliance on property taxes is inefficient and leads to systemic funding problems for some programs.
      - lurr 9y ago
        > Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. I didn't realize I in any way implied I'm in favour of the tax bill.
  - adventured 9y ago
    That's blatantly false. They're doubling the standard deduction, which will cut taxes for the majority of all middle-class tax payers. Most of the middle class pays no or little in the way of net income taxes as it is, with 85%-90% of all income taxes being paid by the top 20% income bracket. The tax cuts the middle class will receive, will drive their net income taxes that much closer to zero. 85% of all the value of the SALT / local income tax deduction goes to people making over $100,000 per year. 97% of all home owners own homes worth less than the new proposed cap on mortgage interest deduction. Both of those tax increases will almost exclusively hit well-off people.
    - grey-sunshine 9y ago
      I think he was being sarcastic.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. this change is good because it will bring the methods of taxation, the value of taxes taken in, and their usage, to light. far too often high taxation states have lived with the idea that the rich won't complaint too much since they can deduct a large portion from their federal taxes. yet all those not rich enough to itemize got stuffed. people need to understand that deductions of state, real estate, and similar taxes, only serves the wealthy. Yet oddly the very same people who complain about the wealthy and taxes instantly pivot when they learn how its all done and that they will be affected. We are the rich, the vast majority posting here make far more than the average if not in multiples. people think it takes millions to be rich, but its not true when you look at the numbers.
  - lazyasciiart 9y ago
    Why should states like California finance the federal government's handouts to other states that refuse to actually tax their own population, do you mean? And why are you ok with the federal government financing states that use property taxes, but not other types?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. It should be neutral to them, which is why State/local taxes should be deductible; non-deductibility creates an artificial incentive to avoid tax-funded programs that are a net economic benefit before considering the distortion produced by federal taxation. A longer write-up and worked example of how this is a problem that I wrote in an earlier discussion of the tax plan is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955
  - marshray 9y ago
    > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens The underlying assumption to your question is that the money belonged to the government in the first place. By that logic, you go to work, produce economic value, various levels of government take what they want, and you receive whatever is left at their pleasure. That's your income: whatever part they decide to let you have after they're done dividing up the money that your employer desired to pay to you. Thus by not "allowing you to deduct" taxes paid, one level of government is literally trying to tax you for money that has been taken by another before you got any of it.

rebuilder 9y ago

You could organize a taxpayer's strike. Obviously not paying your taxes is illegal, so it's a risky move. If you get enough people to join your strike, you'll probably have a lot of leverage. But good luck getting enough strikers.

scrollaway 9y ago
Companies do that all the time, that's why Apple is "striking a deal with Ireland" rather than having execs and accountants go to jail. How does the proverb go again? If you owe the bank fifty thousand dollars you have a problem, if you owe the bank fifty million dollars the bank has a problem?
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  Tax evasion is not paying taxes on income you know you should pay taxes on and is unambiguously illegal. Tax avoidance is structuring your income so as to pay as little tax as is legally possible. The first is legal, and done in secret. The second is legal and done quite openly. A tax strike is illegal and done openly in an effort to get other people to do the same illegal thing openly. Neither tax evasion nor tax avoidance. Apple is not striking a deal with Ireland nor does it want to. The European Court of Justice has ruled that Ireland’s tax policy constitutes state aid and Apple should pay more tax. Ireland and Apple both disagree and are appealing the ruling. Until such time as the appeal is ruled on the money is being held in escrow.
- cosmie 9y ago
  Ireland would much rather keep its word with Apple and not make them pay anything more than previously agreed to, but the EU is forcing its hand. The only deal being struck is between the EU and Ireland to make Apple pay additional tax that Ireland says Apple doesn’t owe, and it’s more of a threat from the EU than an actual deal.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I had cancelled my pledges and re-added them all today (and added one even). I know unfortunately a lot of creators will never get back a good chunk of their pledges, but I feel it's important for us to both revoke our money when a company makes a bad decision... and resume it when they make a good one. Companies recognizing that good decisions make them money is the key. If they figure they're going to lose money no matter what they do, they're less likely to take our feedback into account.

Jpoechill 9y ago
Cancelled a subscription I had myself, looks like I'll have to renew. yipes

pjc50 9y ago

This actually worked in the UK with the "poll tax": a widespread boycott rendered it unworkable and eventually caused reform.

distances 9y ago
Also in Finland: a new additional tax on motorcycles was canceled after citizens removed so many motorcycles from the registry that the new tax with fewer motorcycles was going to bring in less revenue than the status quo before the law proposal.
- brailsafe 9y ago
  In a mostly unrelated sidenote, I'd love to experiment with this in a simulation of my hometown. The city is pathetically dependent on cars in it's culture and urban planning. I'd find it interesting to apply crazy taxation to automobiles with all of the revenue being funneled into public transport.

delibes 9y ago

I like it. You need a good slogan for the media. How about something like ... err ... "No taxation without representation" ? Nah, it'll never work.

jdmichal 9y ago
Congress and Senate voting on a tax scheme is exactly not "taxation without representation"...
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  If I didn't vote for them, and they vote diametrically to my views, they do NOT represent me. Just because mob mentality vote says X candidate wins means little. Especially if we were to hold to the initial representation in the constitution of 30k people per representative. But that number has ossified at 535 for how long now?
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    That's not what representation means. They may not represent your viewpoint, but they do very much represent you and all the other constituents within their region. I'm never quite sure what people who make these kinds of arguments as you did are attempting or hoping to achieve. It's trivially impossible to represent every single viewpoint within a constituency with anything other than direct voting. So that's fine if you want to advocate for direct voting, but just come out and say it. Otherwise, any other system involves intermediate representation, which will then have this exact problem.
    - lurr 9y ago
      Except the president clearly doesn't represent the will of the people, as evidenced by his loss in the popular vote. So how is this at all justifiable?
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago

dang 9y ago

All: please try to avoid going into partisan rabbitholes. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15916464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15916464 and marked it off-topic.