3 ms·

While I feel sorry for the guy whose taxes are about to go up substantially, he shouldn't be trying to claim that $500K a year isn't rich. It is rich. Instead

by hugh3 16y ago

While I feel sorry for the guy whose taxes are about to go up substantially, he shouldn't be trying to claim that $500K a year isn't rich. It is rich. Instead he should be pushing the argument "Why the hell should I have to pay for all these government just because I'm more productive than other people? If I use $10,000 a year worth of government services why am I paying $200,000 for it while some other guy using $10,000 a year of government services pays nothing? Why can't the burden be spread more equally among all those who use government services instead of lumped almost entirely on the top 10%?" That's the argument he should be pushing. Of course there are possible responses to that, but it's a better starting point for debate than "I only make $500K a year, you should tax the real rich, who are making $800K a year!"

Cushman 16y ago
I'm not sure I agree that calculated evil is preferable to well-intentioned ignorance. "Life is hard for me, too" is a lot easier to sympathize with (even if it's complete bullshit) than "I don't care if life is hard for you."
vaksel 16y ago
While I feel sorry for the guy whose taxes are about to go up substantially that's where you lost me. His taxes aren't going to go up...his tax CUTS are about to expire...as they were supposed to. The sunset clause was part of the original bill...instead of bitching that his taxes are going to go back to normal...he should be happy he got to enjoy this tax break for all these years. And "substantially"? His taxes are only going up by ~3%
- hugh3 16y ago
  And "substantially"? His taxes are only going up by ~3% Which is, like, $15,000 a year. That's substantial -- in fact it's more than most people pay in taxes at all! We should start from the fundamental question: why should this guy pay more than Joe Schmo at all? Why shouldn't the tax bill be spread equally over everybody, so it's (say) ten thousand dollars per head? That would be what I call "fair". It's also not possible because some people just aren't getting off their butts and earning $10K per head, but that should be considered a deviation from fairness. We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share.
  - lsc 16y ago
    "We should start from the fundamental question: why should this guy pay more than Joe Schmo at all? Why shouldn't the tax bill be spread equally over everybody, so it's (say) ten thousand dollars per head? That would be what I call "fair"." Let us leave aside "fair" or "unfair" for a moment. The problem with a poll tax is that you can only raise the amount of money you can charge the poorest people you are taxing multiplied by the number of people you are taxing. A tax scheme that operates on a percentage of income (or even increases that percentage as income increases) allows the government to maximize its income in the same way that having higher margin 'premium' products and lower margin "economy" products so rich people can pay more and poor people can pay less allows a business to maximize it's income.
    - pts101 16y ago
      Progressive taxes are approximations of flat taxes that are based on utility rather than nominal dollars.
      - lsc 16y ago
        maybe so. But even without the relationship you describe between what you pay and what you get, a progressive tax system still maximizes the government's income vs a poll tax. I'm just pointing out that even before you get to talking about what's fair or what's right, you simply could not support a government as expensive as ours on a poll tax. - so there is a reason why we have a progressive tax rate that has nothing to do with perceived fairness.
  - pts101 16y ago
    They're going up 3% on the amount over $250,000. It's $7500. If you didn't give him access to accounting software, he would be unable to detect the presence or absence of that money. * That would be what I call "fair".* When I made $50,000/yr, the primary value I got from the government was some physical safety, some education, and roads so I could go to work and buy things. When I made $500,000/yr, the primary value I got from the government was protection of my assets, access to an educated labor pool, and roads so I could transport my goods, so my workers and customers could get to them. The value received from government doesn't correlate perfectly to income, but it does correlate strongly, and as such is a reasonable approximation of a fair price. We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share. This is possibly the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. It's wrongheaded in so many ways that I hope you're a troll. If you are not a troll you are a sociopath, and to be frank... your comments are so nonsensical that I doubt you'll ever have the "problem" of paying taxes that you fear.
- natrius 16y ago
  > His taxes aren't going to go up...his tax CUTS are about to expire That isn't a meaningful distinction for individuals. It only means something for the government's budget outlook. It is a little silly for the law professor to complain about a tax increase without considering the alternatives, which are insolvency or drastic budget cuts. Regardless of the merits of the latter option, it's clearly not politically feasible.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Well, based on his salary, he's probably been in the workforce for 10 years, he voted 10 years ago and he should've been paying attention. We just witnessed one of the greatest free rides in world history, and this guy was a passenger - I'm not exactly brimming with sympathy.
moultano 16y ago
The government providing those services is what allows jobs that pay so well to exist. Most of the function of government is protecting property rights, and the largest part of that is creating a stable society where the poor don't have an incentive to murder the rich.
_delirium 16y ago
I'm not sure $10,000 is a fair-market value for the government services. Probably the biggest single service a government provides to well-off people is protection for their property and person, via policing, military defense, and a centralized property register and court system willing to enforce their ownership of assets. The value of that guarantee goes up with your level of asset ownership.
dedward 16y ago
There are things that guy could do with his money that would give him tax breaks - like using that excess wealth to create jobs, donate to charities, etc. If his burn rate is $500k a year then he's not financially any different from anyone else who's burning theorugh their paycheck - he's just got different hobbies - he's not contributing more meaningfully to society or anything like that - so why not higher taxes?

by hugh3 16y ago

Cushman 16y ago

I'm not sure I agree that calculated evil is preferable to well-intentioned ignorance. "Life is hard for me, too" is a lot easier to sympathize with (even if it's complete bullshit) than "I don't care if life is hard for you."

vaksel 16y ago

While I feel sorry for the guy whose taxes are about to go up substantially that's where you lost me. His taxes aren't going to go up...his tax CUTS are about to expire...as they were supposed to. The sunset clause was part of the original bill...instead of bitching that his taxes are going to go back to normal...he should be happy he got to enjoy this tax break for all these years. And "substantially"? His taxes are only going up by ~3%

hugh3 16y ago
And "substantially"? His taxes are only going up by ~3% Which is, like, $15,000 a year. That's substantial -- in fact it's more than most people pay in taxes at all! We should start from the fundamental question: why should this guy pay more than Joe Schmo at all? Why shouldn't the tax bill be spread equally over everybody, so it's (say) ten thousand dollars per head? That would be what I call "fair". It's also not possible because some people just aren't getting off their butts and earning $10K per head, but that should be considered a deviation from fairness. We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share.
- lsc 16y ago
  "We should start from the fundamental question: why should this guy pay more than Joe Schmo at all? Why shouldn't the tax bill be spread equally over everybody, so it's (say) ten thousand dollars per head? That would be what I call "fair"." Let us leave aside "fair" or "unfair" for a moment. The problem with a poll tax is that you can only raise the amount of money you can charge the poorest people you are taxing multiplied by the number of people you are taxing. A tax scheme that operates on a percentage of income (or even increases that percentage as income increases) allows the government to maximize its income in the same way that having higher margin 'premium' products and lower margin "economy" products so rich people can pay more and poor people can pay less allows a business to maximize it's income.
  - pts101 16y ago
    Progressive taxes are approximations of flat taxes that are based on utility rather than nominal dollars.
    - lsc 16y ago
      maybe so. But even without the relationship you describe between what you pay and what you get, a progressive tax system still maximizes the government's income vs a poll tax. I'm just pointing out that even before you get to talking about what's fair or what's right, you simply could not support a government as expensive as ours on a poll tax. - so there is a reason why we have a progressive tax rate that has nothing to do with perceived fairness.
- pts101 16y ago
  They're going up 3% on the amount over $250,000. It's $7500. If you didn't give him access to accounting software, he would be unable to detect the presence or absence of that money. * That would be what I call "fair".* When I made $50,000/yr, the primary value I got from the government was some physical safety, some education, and roads so I could go to work and buy things. When I made $500,000/yr, the primary value I got from the government was protection of my assets, access to an educated labor pool, and roads so I could transport my goods, so my workers and customers could get to them. The value received from government doesn't correlate perfectly to income, but it does correlate strongly, and as such is a reasonable approximation of a fair price. We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share. This is possibly the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. It's wrongheaded in so many ways that I hope you're a troll. If you are not a troll you are a sociopath, and to be frank... your comments are so nonsensical that I doubt you'll ever have the "problem" of paying taxes that you fear.
natrius 16y ago
> His taxes aren't going to go up...his tax CUTS are about to expire That isn't a meaningful distinction for individuals. It only means something for the government's budget outlook. It is a little silly for the law professor to complain about a tax increase without considering the alternatives, which are insolvency or drastic budget cuts. Regardless of the merits of the latter option, it's clearly not politically feasible.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Well, based on his salary, he's probably been in the workforce for 10 years, he voted 10 years ago and he should've been paying attention. We just witnessed one of the greatest free rides in world history, and this guy was a passenger - I'm not exactly brimming with sympathy.

moultano 16y ago

The government providing those services is what allows jobs that pay so well to exist. Most of the function of government is protecting property rights, and the largest part of that is creating a stable society where the poor don't have an incentive to murder the rich.

_delirium 16y ago

I'm not sure $10,000 is a fair-market value for the government services. Probably the biggest single service a government provides to well-off people is protection for their property and person, via policing, military defense, and a centralized property register and court system willing to enforce their ownership of assets. The value of that guarantee goes up with your level of asset ownership.

dedward 16y ago

There are things that guy could do with his money that would give him tax breaks - like using that excess wealth to create jobs, donate to charities, etc. If his burn rate is $500k a year then he's not financially any different from anyone else who's burning theorugh their paycheck - he's just got different hobbies - he's not contributing more meaningfully to society or anything like that - so why not higher taxes?