6 ms·

You know, we should just drop the other shoe and reduce all taxes on rich people to zero. It's what they pay anyway. It would save us the money of pretending

You know, we should just drop the other shoe and reduce all taxes on rich people to zero. It's what they pay anyway. It would save us the money of pretending to tax them.

manigandham 8y ago
They definitely don't pay 0. They actually pay a significant portion of all taxes collected. You won't pay as much in your entire lifetime as the annual bills for some of these people. I find it strange to see such animosity against "the rich" on an forum dedicated to startups from a company that has helped created billions in market cap and mint several new billionaires in the process.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  >I find it strange to see such animosity against "the rich" on an forum dedicated to startups from a company that has helped created billions in market cap and mint several new billionaires in the process. There is a huge difference between someone becoming so wealthy that they and the next 5 generations of their heirs don't need to do any real work for the rest of their lives, and someone figuring out a way to create a sustainable organization that provides real value to lots of people. It is more than reasonable to want to encourage society to favor the latter over the former.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. These ranks change all the time as wealth is created and lost. Very few stay rich through generations, but even then it's always invested in something, like businesses that benefit others. These same wealthy people are the LPs that fund the VCs that fund the SV startups. It's a cycle.
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      > It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. Actually, accumulated wealth to that extent is almost always connected to anti-competitive practices and monopolizing a space to such an extent that people have no other choice then to do business with you.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        All corporations trend toward monopoly as it provides the greatest efficiency and value to all involved, until it crests the peak of innovation and starts falling into decay. It makes no difference if you want to focus on businesses instead of family names. It's just another cycle of rise and fall that you can easily see by looking at the Fortune 500.
        hedvig 8y ago
        Some of us aren't resigned to the idea that it has to be that way though.
        manigandham 8y ago
        What way? That things are in a constant cycle? Are you suggesting that there be some perfect steady state of companies that are neither too big nor too small and nobody can ever gain or lose in life?
      - refurb 8y ago
        I can think of far more examples of very successful companies that got that way by offering something people wanted than companies who used anti-competitive tactics to push a sub-standard product.
    - ionised 8y ago
      > How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. I find that hard to believe, honestly. It seems like the biggest gains are to be made in rent-seeking, milking your customers, monopolising and forming cartels and just outright fraud.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  There's strong animosity against the rich because some of us grew up seeing our families destroyed chasing the american dream while others grew rich off their misfortune. That and the constant attempts at reverting certain policies or actions that would make my QoL demonstrably worse.
  - late2part 8y ago
    Really? Are you worse off then your parents?
    - ionised 8y ago
      This generation is, by and large, yes.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        In what way? There are billions lifted out of poverty across the planet over the last few decades. Every objective measure shows improvement. What are your counter examples?
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        In the US, socioeconomic mobility is way down, housing prices are up, insurance prices are up and wages have not kept up with inflation. We're lagging far behind some of our far-less-rich counterparts. These are all facts solidly backed up through studies over the years.
        manigandham 8y ago
        In the US: meaning around 4% of the world's population who are all in the 1% of global wealth. If you're going to talk about an entire generation, then I found it disingenuous to scope it down to a tiny minority of the people in the world. Mobility might have decreased in this country relatively (although without considering the cause) but absolute quality of life has increased with iphones in every pocket, on-demand services for everything imaginable, and white collar tech jobs paying mid-6-figures in one of the strongest currencies. I have to again bring up the fact that this is on YC forums which have witnessed many people from many countries start with nothing but a few comments and build incredibly successful companies. Compared to the wars, depressions and struggle of prior generations, folks today are at a height of comfort and opportunity never seen before.
- ionised 8y ago
  > They definitely don't pay 0. They actually pay a significant portion of all taxes collected. You won't pay as much in your entire lifetime as the annual bills for some of these people Because they have more money than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. They are supposed to pay most of the taxes. They own most of the wealth. It's pretty fucking straight forward.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Yes, that's what I said, in response to a comment that said they pay 0. Who are you arguing with?
refurb 8y ago
They most certainly don't pay zero. The top 1% (income over 1.827M) pay an average rate of 34%.[1] [1]https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf

You know, we should just drop the other shoe and reduce all taxes on rich people to zero. It's what they pay anyway. It would save us the money of pretending to tax them.

manigandham 8y ago

They definitely don't pay 0. They actually pay a significant portion of all taxes collected. You won't pay as much in your entire lifetime as the annual bills for some of these people. I find it strange to see such animosity against "the rich" on an forum dedicated to startups from a company that has helped created billions in market cap and mint several new billionaires in the process.

omegaworks 8y ago
>I find it strange to see such animosity against "the rich" on an forum dedicated to startups from a company that has helped created billions in market cap and mint several new billionaires in the process. There is a huge difference between someone becoming so wealthy that they and the next 5 generations of their heirs don't need to do any real work for the rest of their lives, and someone figuring out a way to create a sustainable organization that provides real value to lots of people. It is more than reasonable to want to encourage society to favor the latter over the former.
- manigandham 8y ago
  How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. These ranks change all the time as wealth is created and lost. Very few stay rich through generations, but even then it's always invested in something, like businesses that benefit others. These same wealthy people are the LPs that fund the VCs that fund the SV startups. It's a cycle.
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    > It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. Actually, accumulated wealth to that extent is almost always connected to anti-competitive practices and monopolizing a space to such an extent that people have no other choice then to do business with you.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      All corporations trend toward monopoly as it provides the greatest efficiency and value to all involved, until it crests the peak of innovation and starts falling into decay. It makes no difference if you want to focus on businesses instead of family names. It's just another cycle of rise and fall that you can easily see by looking at the Fortune 500.
      - hedvig 8y ago
        Some of us aren't resigned to the idea that it has to be that way though.
        manigandham 8y ago
        What way? That things are in a constant cycle? Are you suggesting that there be some perfect steady state of companies that are neither too big nor too small and nobody can ever gain or lose in life?
    - refurb 8y ago
      I can think of far more examples of very successful companies that got that way by offering something people wanted than companies who used anti-competitive tactics to push a sub-standard product.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. I find that hard to believe, honestly. It seems like the biggest gains are to be made in rent-seeking, milking your customers, monopolising and forming cartels and just outright fraud.
fzeroracer 8y ago
There's strong animosity against the rich because some of us grew up seeing our families destroyed chasing the american dream while others grew rich off their misfortune. That and the constant attempts at reverting certain policies or actions that would make my QoL demonstrably worse.
- late2part 8y ago
  Really? Are you worse off then your parents?
  - ionised 8y ago
    This generation is, by and large, yes.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      In what way? There are billions lifted out of poverty across the planet over the last few decades. Every objective measure shows improvement. What are your counter examples?
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        In the US, socioeconomic mobility is way down, housing prices are up, insurance prices are up and wages have not kept up with inflation. We're lagging far behind some of our far-less-rich counterparts. These are all facts solidly backed up through studies over the years.
        manigandham 8y ago
        In the US: meaning around 4% of the world's population who are all in the 1% of global wealth. If you're going to talk about an entire generation, then I found it disingenuous to scope it down to a tiny minority of the people in the world. Mobility might have decreased in this country relatively (although without considering the cause) but absolute quality of life has increased with iphones in every pocket, on-demand services for everything imaginable, and white collar tech jobs paying mid-6-figures in one of the strongest currencies. I have to again bring up the fact that this is on YC forums which have witnessed many people from many countries start with nothing but a few comments and build incredibly successful companies. Compared to the wars, depressions and struggle of prior generations, folks today are at a height of comfort and opportunity never seen before.
ionised 8y ago
> They definitely don't pay 0. They actually pay a significant portion of all taxes collected. You won't pay as much in your entire lifetime as the annual bills for some of these people Because they have more money than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. They are supposed to pay most of the taxes. They own most of the wealth. It's pretty fucking straight forward.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Yes, that's what I said, in response to a comment that said they pay 0. Who are you arguing with?

refurb 8y ago

They most certainly don't pay zero. The top 1% (income over 1.827M) pay an average rate of 34%.[1] [1]https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf