4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - grasshoper 16y ago
    your comments are so nonsensical that I doubt you'll ever have the "problem" of paying taxes that you fear Like Joe the Plumber, in this guy's imagination he has to deal with the burdens of a progressive tax system. Reality is a different story.
  - pts101 16y ago
    (replying to myself) One point I'd make to up and coming entrepreneurs: taxes aren't going to be the burden you fear. When you're growing your company you'll pay relatively little personal or corporate income tax. Personal income tax will be relatively low because most entrepreneurs would rather reinvest in their business than buy a $20,000 watch. Corporate will be relatively low because you won't be sitting on the cash, you'll be hiring people, spending on infrastructure or advertising and otherwise growing the business. This means your annual profits will be tiny. The vast majority of the value you accrue will be in the business itself, and you won't have to pay on those gains until you liquidate. Frankly, I think these discussions are bad for HN not because it's a bad idea to discuss politics or economics, but because nearly everybody on this site would get more value from an article about marketing, productivity, coding, testing, launching products, or any other topic that can actually help an entrepreneur build their business, today.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > Which is, like, $15,000 a year. No, it isn't. That not how taxes work. His marginal rate for the highest bracket will go up, for his first 250k his taxes will be exactly the same. It's hard to take an argument seriously from someone about taxes being too high if they don't even know how they're computed. > We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share. You need help, serious mental help.
- wheaties 16y ago
  You do realize that 48% of all Americans pay $0 dollars in Federal Income tax. The top 10% pay 40% of the pie. I'm for the tax cuts expiring but I do also agree with the whole "equality" argument. I'm of the generation where I'll probably never see any Social Security but I do know that I'm paying for it.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    This is the key point (or should be) in this discussion. The foolish spending that Delong accuses Henderson of supporting would never have been approved if the average taxpayer had to pay even $10 out of pocket for it. The general public can only be convinced to vote for grandiose schemes when there is zero perceived cost. Since most US citizens pay nearly nothing in taxes, it's easy to get them to vote for such schemes. The tax system is designed to facilitate consent for such schemes, or at least to minimize the natural skepticism that any reasonable person would have about the ROI of most government endeavors. Of course, you can't have negative ROI if your investment was $0, so why not cheer on the blow dried politicians and hope it works, after all someone else is paying for it.
  - 2arrs2ells 16y ago
    This is a wildly misleading figure. First, the primary driver of this "inequality" is the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the US. The top 10% of earners in the US take home nearly 50% of the country's total income. Under a "flat tax" system (i.e. everyone pays 20%), they would still pay nearly 50% of the country's total income tax. Under our system they actually pay 70% of all taxes. Do you think it's "unequal" for people who take home more income to pay proportionally more income taxes? Second, even people paying zero income tax pay ~15% of taxes on income for social security + medicare, as well as a disproportionate share of their income on regressive taxes, like sales tax and gas tax.
    - wheaties 16y ago
      Nope, I don't think it's unfair that the people who earn more pay more. In fact, I'm for it. However, what I'm against is even a small group not paying for it. This "small" group right now is nearly half of the population. The argument for regressive taxes is also poor. Come to New Hampshire where there is no sales tax or W-2 income tax. The air is clean, the mountains well hiked and the people friendly. Take a look at the state's finances too. The regressive taxes there are on inheritance, dividends, investment income and a few things else I can't remember. That hits the rich far more than the poor.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  "We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share." In a distribution as heavily skewed as US income, "below-average" would probably be around 80% - 90% of the population. Perhaps you meant 'median' or something else other than 'average'.
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    It doesn't really matter what he meant, any way you slice it that comment is simply disgusting.
    - SkyMarshal 16y ago
      True. I didn't think I needed to reiterate that, but maybe I should have just to be clear I wasn't agreeing with it.
- ebiester 16y ago
  Oh, that's easy. If everyone is taxed at 15k a head, then the minimum that anyone can work for jumps to 30k a year, or 20k part time. That means hyper-inflation or mass unemployment. That means that college would incur an additional 60,000 in opportunity cost, costing this country a skilled labor base. You still need people to man the circle Ks. If you suddenly have to mechanize all of these positions (because the price of labor has doubled or tripled), you end up with even higher unemployment. And I promise you, when you have 30% unemployment and people coming for your head, you will see armed revolt. It's simple. You do not press on poor people because they are the foot soldiers in a revolution, and your soldiers are their brothers.
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.

by vaksel 16y ago

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.
- grasshoper 16y ago
  your comments are so nonsensical that I doubt you'll ever have the "problem" of paying taxes that you fear Like Joe the Plumber, in this guy's imagination he has to deal with the burdens of a progressive tax system. Reality is a different story.
- pts101 16y ago
  (replying to myself) One point I'd make to up and coming entrepreneurs: taxes aren't going to be the burden you fear. When you're growing your company you'll pay relatively little personal or corporate income tax. Personal income tax will be relatively low because most entrepreneurs would rather reinvest in their business than buy a $20,000 watch. Corporate will be relatively low because you won't be sitting on the cash, you'll be hiring people, spending on infrastructure or advertising and otherwise growing the business. This means your annual profits will be tiny. The vast majority of the value you accrue will be in the business itself, and you won't have to pay on those gains until you liquidate. Frankly, I think these discussions are bad for HN not because it's a bad idea to discuss politics or economics, but because nearly everybody on this site would get more value from an article about marketing, productivity, coding, testing, launching products, or any other topic that can actually help an entrepreneur build their business, today.
gnaritas 16y ago
> Which is, like, $15,000 a year. No, it isn't. That not how taxes work. His marginal rate for the highest bracket will go up, for his first 250k his taxes will be exactly the same. It's hard to take an argument seriously from someone about taxes being too high if they don't even know how they're computed. > We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share. You need help, serious mental help.
wheaties 16y ago
You do realize that 48% of all Americans pay $0 dollars in Federal Income tax. The top 10% pay 40% of the pie. I'm for the tax cuts expiring but I do also agree with the whole "equality" argument. I'm of the generation where I'll probably never see any Social Security but I do know that I'm paying for it.
- grandalf 16y ago
  This is the key point (or should be) in this discussion. The foolish spending that Delong accuses Henderson of supporting would never have been approved if the average taxpayer had to pay even $10 out of pocket for it. The general public can only be convinced to vote for grandiose schemes when there is zero perceived cost. Since most US citizens pay nearly nothing in taxes, it's easy to get them to vote for such schemes. The tax system is designed to facilitate consent for such schemes, or at least to minimize the natural skepticism that any reasonable person would have about the ROI of most government endeavors. Of course, you can't have negative ROI if your investment was $0, so why not cheer on the blow dried politicians and hope it works, after all someone else is paying for it.
- 2arrs2ells 16y ago
  This is a wildly misleading figure. First, the primary driver of this "inequality" is the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the US. The top 10% of earners in the US take home nearly 50% of the country's total income. Under a "flat tax" system (i.e. everyone pays 20%), they would still pay nearly 50% of the country's total income tax. Under our system they actually pay 70% of all taxes. Do you think it's "unequal" for people who take home more income to pay proportionally more income taxes? Second, even people paying zero income tax pay ~15% of taxes on income for social security + medicare, as well as a disproportionate share of their income on regressive taxes, like sales tax and gas tax.
  - wheaties 16y ago
    Nope, I don't think it's unfair that the people who earn more pay more. In fact, I'm for it. However, what I'm against is even a small group not paying for it. This "small" group right now is nearly half of the population. The argument for regressive taxes is also poor. Come to New Hampshire where there is no sales tax or W-2 income tax. The air is clean, the mountains well hiked and the people friendly. Take a look at the state's finances too. The regressive taxes there are on inheritance, dividends, investment income and a few things else I can't remember. That hits the rich far more than the poor.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
"We should look down upon those with below-average incomes as jerks who aren't working hard enough to pay their share." In a distribution as heavily skewed as US income, "below-average" would probably be around 80% - 90% of the population. Perhaps you meant 'median' or something else other than 'average'.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  It doesn't really matter what he meant, any way you slice it that comment is simply disgusting.
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    True. I didn't think I needed to reiterate that, but maybe I should have just to be clear I wasn't agreeing with it.
ebiester 16y ago
Oh, that's easy. If everyone is taxed at 15k a head, then the minimum that anyone can work for jumps to 30k a year, or 20k part time. That means hyper-inflation or mass unemployment. That means that college would incur an additional 60,000 in opportunity cost, costing this country a skilled labor base. You still need people to man the circle Ks. If you suddenly have to mechanize all of these positions (because the price of labor has doubled or tripled), you end up with even higher unemployment. And I promise you, when you have 30% unemployment and people coming for your head, you will see armed revolt. It's simple. You do not press on poor people because they are the foot soldiers in a revolution, and your soldiers are their brothers.

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.