4 ms·

> I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if

> I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high Irony meter off the charts. most people don't understand they are likely tax consumers, not providers. As a thought experiment, it must be true that at some income level a person uses more taxes than they provide. Quantifying the exact number is difficult and locality dependent, but it clearly exists. Who do you think the major tax revenue providers are? Corporations and rich people. I don't understand why anyone thinks they're not paying their fair share when they are almost the only ones paying. The top 10% of us wage earners account for over 70% of personal income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% (under 40k/year) contribute <3% https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...

cannonedhamster 8y ago
The reason people see it as unfair is because the wealth in the United States goes disproportionately to the top. Of course they are going to be the ones paying they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income. The money they pay mostly goes to services that benefit themselves anyways. There's a reason that wealthier areas have nicer schools, better roads, always get plowed first. I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. Let's not get into the world. https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/ https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/
- tekproxy 8y ago
  Pareto distributions occur in all skill dependent distributions from musicians and academics. You say it like it's some evil conspiracy or that the rich only become rich by making others poor.
  - chrisbennet 8y ago
    When a man tells you he got rich by hard work, ask him: Whose? -Don Marquis
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    It's not that rich people are evil. Rich people control the systems by which money is made and logically reserve as large a portion of that pie as they can for themselves. The problem is that as a group they have made it so that there is not enough at the bottom and policy needs to be changed to reflect that. It's like saying you have a group of two people in a room with a pump that keeps giving them air, but the pump is fed by a room full of 50 people who keep having a dwindling supply of air to breathe. The only thing keeping those two rooms apart is an unlocked door. At some point either the people with all the air share it, or the people in the room without it will open the door by force. It's just a statement of human nature. Imbalanced systems have a way of achieving balance.
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      > Imbalanced systems have a way of achieving balance. You glossed over that like there is some ideal system we're being kept from by evil rich people. What exactly is this unlocked door we open and everything is solved?
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > disproportionately Says who? If it is, who says that's wrong? Life is inherently unequal in every way. Disproportionality is not a moral argument. > they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income by almost every measure, now is the greatest time to be alive in all of recorded history. Additionally, as long as youre not homeless in America you are in the top 1% wealthiest people in the world. > I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. How does that make any sense? You personally have more money than millions of people with a better quality of life that they are _literally dying_ to achieve. Did you drink clean water today? could you go to an emergency room for life saving care, even if the bill would be difficult to pay? How much do you donate, since you have such a disproportionate amount of wealth - are you paying your fair share in the world?
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    Disproportionately is a function of a fact, it's not moral or ethical, it's a statement. I feel bad that you are personally offended by facts. You keep talking globally without the valid counterpoint. You're mixing American taxation with global outcomes and saying because we have it better off it's not wrong. That's the functional equivalent of telling a person on a sinking ship that they should feel lucky they aren't drowning while you pass by on your yacht. You can always find someone worse off, but wouldn't it be more productive to build the pie by bringing up the bottom rather than pulling up the ladder behind you. You again don't seem to understand facts. It's simple numbers. If money keeps pooling at the top democracy doesn't function, it functionally can't because of the power imbalance and we've seen it more than once in the United States. Since you're asking personally questions I donate large amounts of my personal money because I know my station and came up from poverty, but my lack of hypocrisy isn't the point. The point isn't how much you give it's how much you have left after you've given. The United States is one of the most charitable countries in the world, however that means absolutely nothing because as stated prior, the people at the bottom no longer have the funds to go to the hospital. You seem to be woefully unaware of the reality in the United States, many Americans literally cannot or will not go to the hospital or an emergency room due to cost and a not insignificant percentage of those people either die or end up worse off because of it. Right now in the United States we have literally entire towns and cities that do not have access to clean, safe water, much less electricity and running sewage. Add to that infant mortality rates in the United States are worse than most other developed countries, economic mobility is currently anemic in either direction and has been since Ronald Reagan and nearly half Americans are one or two months away from a foreclosure and homelessness. Just what wonderland do you think most Americans are living in? edit: For terrible, no good, horrible grammar.
jacobmoe 8y ago
I think your irony meter needs to be calibrated. Whether we can agree that a given tax policy is good or bad is dependent on whether we can agree to what the goal of taxation is. I think the goal is to maximize human flourishing. I honestly don't know what the optimal levels are, but I don't think it's 0 and I think it will involve a progressive tax structure of some sort. It's true that if millionaires were "fleeing" California than we could agree that California's tax policy was running counter to that goal. But that's not what is happening. It's a clickbaity headline that only serves to score a point in an ideological battle.

cannonedhamster 8y ago

The reason people see it as unfair is because the wealth in the United States goes disproportionately to the top. Of course they are going to be the ones paying they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income. The money they pay mostly goes to services that benefit themselves anyways. There's a reason that wealthier areas have nicer schools, better roads, always get plowed first. I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. Let's not get into the world. https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/ https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/

tekproxy 8y ago
Pareto distributions occur in all skill dependent distributions from musicians and academics. You say it like it's some evil conspiracy or that the rich only become rich by making others poor.
- chrisbennet 8y ago
  When a man tells you he got rich by hard work, ask him: Whose? -Don Marquis
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  It's not that rich people are evil. Rich people control the systems by which money is made and logically reserve as large a portion of that pie as they can for themselves. The problem is that as a group they have made it so that there is not enough at the bottom and policy needs to be changed to reflect that. It's like saying you have a group of two people in a room with a pump that keeps giving them air, but the pump is fed by a room full of 50 people who keep having a dwindling supply of air to breathe. The only thing keeping those two rooms apart is an unlocked door. At some point either the people with all the air share it, or the people in the room without it will open the door by force. It's just a statement of human nature. Imbalanced systems have a way of achieving balance.
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    > Imbalanced systems have a way of achieving balance. You glossed over that like there is some ideal system we're being kept from by evil rich people. What exactly is this unlocked door we open and everything is solved?
kryogen1c 8y ago
> disproportionately Says who? If it is, who says that's wrong? Life is inherently unequal in every way. Disproportionality is not a moral argument. > they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income by almost every measure, now is the greatest time to be alive in all of recorded history. Additionally, as long as youre not homeless in America you are in the top 1% wealthiest people in the world. > I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. How does that make any sense? You personally have more money than millions of people with a better quality of life that they are _literally dying_ to achieve. Did you drink clean water today? could you go to an emergency room for life saving care, even if the bill would be difficult to pay? How much do you donate, since you have such a disproportionate amount of wealth - are you paying your fair share in the world?
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  Disproportionately is a function of a fact, it's not moral or ethical, it's a statement. I feel bad that you are personally offended by facts. You keep talking globally without the valid counterpoint. You're mixing American taxation with global outcomes and saying because we have it better off it's not wrong. That's the functional equivalent of telling a person on a sinking ship that they should feel lucky they aren't drowning while you pass by on your yacht. You can always find someone worse off, but wouldn't it be more productive to build the pie by bringing up the bottom rather than pulling up the ladder behind you. You again don't seem to understand facts. It's simple numbers. If money keeps pooling at the top democracy doesn't function, it functionally can't because of the power imbalance and we've seen it more than once in the United States. Since you're asking personally questions I donate large amounts of my personal money because I know my station and came up from poverty, but my lack of hypocrisy isn't the point. The point isn't how much you give it's how much you have left after you've given. The United States is one of the most charitable countries in the world, however that means absolutely nothing because as stated prior, the people at the bottom no longer have the funds to go to the hospital. You seem to be woefully unaware of the reality in the United States, many Americans literally cannot or will not go to the hospital or an emergency room due to cost and a not insignificant percentage of those people either die or end up worse off because of it. Right now in the United States we have literally entire towns and cities that do not have access to clean, safe water, much less electricity and running sewage. Add to that infant mortality rates in the United States are worse than most other developed countries, economic mobility is currently anemic in either direction and has been since Ronald Reagan and nearly half Americans are one or two months away from a foreclosure and homelessness. Just what wonderland do you think most Americans are living in? edit: For terrible, no good, horrible grammar.

jacobmoe 8y ago

I think your irony meter needs to be calibrated. Whether we can agree that a given tax policy is good or bad is dependent on whether we can agree to what the goal of taxation is. I think the goal is to maximize human flourishing. I honestly don't know what the optimal levels are, but I don't think it's 0 and I think it will involve a progressive tax structure of some sort. It's true that if millionaires were "fleeing" California than we could agree that California's tax policy was running counter to that goal. But that's not what is happening. It's a clickbaity headline that only serves to score a point in an ideological battle.