6 ms·

Lucky for them they can!: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/preview/pdf/23779454 https://www.pay.gov/public/form/preview/pdf/23779454

creato 7y ago
Being willing to raise taxes on yourself, and unilaterally volunteering extra taxes are very different things. You probably know this, as do most people making this argument.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  Yes, they are - one is just and the other is unjust.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  No. People would take them seriously if they volunteered the money. Otherwise they’re the people complaining the Earth is on fire while vacationing around the world, burning through a thousand people’s CO2 budget.
  - throwaway100773 7y ago
    Rules for thee but not for me.
- ericmay 7y ago
  Why are they two different things? If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? Leadership would be paying extra taxes regardless of whether or not the taxes are raised across the board. It feels kind of slimy to me to say "oh yes we should all pay extra taxes but I won't do so unless the government officially raises my tax rate" - uh so you mean you don't believe in paying more taxes unless the government forces you to? Like the rest of us? It is definitely more along the lines of moral posturing to me. At least I know where someone stands when they don't want taxes to be raised.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    >If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? They're talking about solving problems on a scale of a country the size of the US. A few extra bucks from some small number of wealthy people is meaningless.
    - ameister14 7y ago
      So you are against raising taxes on them?
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.
        ameister14 7y ago
        Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
        EpicEng 7y ago
        Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > You probably know this, as do most people making this argument. Yes, but this is not a valid criticism of the argument. If you believe in raising taxes on yourself and people like you, then you ought to lead by example, and voluntarily pay the extra taxes you would like to pay yourself, while proposing the law forces others to do the same. For example, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that the law mandate parents care for their children while neglecting my own. Similarly, the 'ultra-wealthy' who are arguing for higher taxes while not voluntarily paying them are hypocrites. You probably know this, as do most making this argument.
reaperducer 7y ago
Exactly. It's all posturing so they can make themselves feel good about themselves. It's like skinny people who complain about how eating will make them balloon up like a whale.
merpnderp 7y ago
They aren’t serious. They know they don’t have enough to matter and their tax attorneys can protect their money in any case. It’s all for bragging rights at the country club for which rich jackass can say he truly cares the most.
EpicEng 7y ago
Solves absolutely nothing because most wealthy people won't do it, and I can't necessarily blame them. If it were me, I'd rather donate money to a specific cause than send more to the fed, and many won't do either voluntarily. When these people say "I should be paying more in taxes", they mean that the marginal tax rate should be much higher than it is for high levels of income, not that they'd love to throw in an extra couple of million but can't figure out how to do so.
moralsupply 7y ago
Here's the usual story: 1.The rich propose higher taxes for themselves 2.The middle class and the poor approve that gesture, as it's "distribution of wealth" 3.Legislative and executive branches approve higher taxes for people who earn above $100k/year 4.The rich manage to not pay those taxes using all sorts of devices 5.The middle class now pay more taxes 5.The government uses the extra income to grow its own size and support the rich through cronyism
- ergothus 7y ago
  I'm not sure how "usual" your version is. In the US, tax cuts on the rich have been the norm for most of my adult life, often fairly obvious. So points 1 and 2 of your list dont match. I'm not saying your scenario is invalid or unlikely, but it's not the one I've been part of.
- chrispeel 7y ago
  A progressive tax change can be revenue-neutral, so that the end result is exactly the same govt size as before. I.e. the govt growth that you're imagining in your last item does not need to happen, even if the previous items occur. If you try for a revenue-neutral change, and the rich somehow avoid paying their taxes, I fail to see how this would result in the middle class paying more taxes without a further tax change. If the rich avoid taxes, then we should change the tax code, including incentives and enforcement to overcome this. Don't just throw up your hands when you face a problem.
  - moralsupply 7y ago
    > If the rich avoid taxes, then we should change the tax code I'm in for that. Make taxes optional, so that if you believe they are a good thing, you pay taxes. If I think they provide no value to me, I pay no taxes and instead I contract services in the free market. That way everybody is happy and get what they want.
spaced-out 7y ago
How about we just make all taxes voluntary?
- zentiggr 7y ago
  And military service too... reassign every recruiter to any other duty and let people sign up only if they believe it's a proper thing to do. (My brother was an Army recruiter for his last couple of years before retirement. Oh man the stories he had. How to sour a career no matter how well any of the prior years went.)
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    First, thanks to your brother for his service. I enlisted right out of high school, and yes, my recruiter told me some whoppers. My favorite (boy, was I green): "They don't count weekends days in basic training. You get weekends off!"
r00fus 7y ago
One or two people won't make a difference. The entire policy of taxation in the US needs to change. That's why we have government because otherwise we can't have nice things (note: in many cases that even doesn't work either but that's the imperfect system we have and need to improve - the alternatives like "self regulation" have been proven throughout history to not be scalable).
- tathougies 7y ago
  > the alternatives like "self regulation" have been proven throughout history to not be scalable On the contrary, self-regulation is now the preferred form of government. It used to be the case that most governments were led by an entity outside the government and outside the purview of the state and society (a monarch). Today most countries are democracies, which means self-regulation of the society by the people that constitute that society, typically via some kind of elected leadership positions (but not always). Self-regulating markets have also proven to be the most straightforward way to feed and house and provide a middle-class life for most people. Certainly superior to the more planned economies that preceded it.
triceratops 7y ago
If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich people who don't do it. This is no different than saying "We don't need laws to prevent dumping industrial waste into water. If your company thinks it's so important, they should just do it." Which will just result in the environmentally-conscious company being outcompeted by everyone else.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich people who don't do it. Oh boo hoo. I feel so sorry for the multi billionaire who has one less billion than the other multi billionaire.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't do this here. The idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

creato 7y ago

Being willing to raise taxes on yourself, and unilaterally volunteering extra taxes are very different things. You probably know this, as do most people making this argument.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Yes, they are - one is just and the other is unjust.
merpnderp 7y ago
No. People would take them seriously if they volunteered the money. Otherwise they’re the people complaining the Earth is on fire while vacationing around the world, burning through a thousand people’s CO2 budget.
- throwaway100773 7y ago
  Rules for thee but not for me.
ericmay 7y ago
Why are they two different things? If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? Leadership would be paying extra taxes regardless of whether or not the taxes are raised across the board. It feels kind of slimy to me to say "oh yes we should all pay extra taxes but I won't do so unless the government officially raises my tax rate" - uh so you mean you don't believe in paying more taxes unless the government forces you to? Like the rest of us? It is definitely more along the lines of moral posturing to me. At least I know where someone stands when they don't want taxes to be raised.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? They're talking about solving problems on a scale of a country the size of the US. A few extra bucks from some small number of wealthy people is meaningless.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    So you are against raising taxes on them?
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.
      - ameister14 7y ago
        Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
        EpicEng 7y ago
        Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
tathougies 7y ago
> You probably know this, as do most people making this argument. Yes, but this is not a valid criticism of the argument. If you believe in raising taxes on yourself and people like you, then you ought to lead by example, and voluntarily pay the extra taxes you would like to pay yourself, while proposing the law forces others to do the same. For example, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that the law mandate parents care for their children while neglecting my own. Similarly, the 'ultra-wealthy' who are arguing for higher taxes while not voluntarily paying them are hypocrites. You probably know this, as do most making this argument.

reaperducer 7y ago

Exactly. It's all posturing so they can make themselves feel good about themselves. It's like skinny people who complain about how eating will make them balloon up like a whale.

merpnderp 7y ago

They aren’t serious. They know they don’t have enough to matter and their tax attorneys can protect their money in any case. It’s all for bragging rights at the country club for which rich jackass can say he truly cares the most.

EpicEng 7y ago

Solves absolutely nothing because most wealthy people won't do it, and I can't necessarily blame them. If it were me, I'd rather donate money to a specific cause than send more to the fed, and many won't do either voluntarily. When these people say "I should be paying more in taxes", they mean that the marginal tax rate should be much higher than it is for high levels of income, not that they'd love to throw in an extra couple of million but can't figure out how to do so.

moralsupply 7y ago

Here's the usual story: 1.The rich propose higher taxes for themselves 2.The middle class and the poor approve that gesture, as it's "distribution of wealth" 3.Legislative and executive branches approve higher taxes for people who earn above $100k/year 4.The rich manage to not pay those taxes using all sorts of devices 5.The middle class now pay more taxes 5.The government uses the extra income to grow its own size and support the rich through cronyism

ergothus 7y ago
I'm not sure how "usual" your version is. In the US, tax cuts on the rich have been the norm for most of my adult life, often fairly obvious. So points 1 and 2 of your list dont match. I'm not saying your scenario is invalid or unlikely, but it's not the one I've been part of.
chrispeel 7y ago
A progressive tax change can be revenue-neutral, so that the end result is exactly the same govt size as before. I.e. the govt growth that you're imagining in your last item does not need to happen, even if the previous items occur. If you try for a revenue-neutral change, and the rich somehow avoid paying their taxes, I fail to see how this would result in the middle class paying more taxes without a further tax change. If the rich avoid taxes, then we should change the tax code, including incentives and enforcement to overcome this. Don't just throw up your hands when you face a problem.
- moralsupply 7y ago
  > If the rich avoid taxes, then we should change the tax code I'm in for that. Make taxes optional, so that if you believe they are a good thing, you pay taxes. If I think they provide no value to me, I pay no taxes and instead I contract services in the free market. That way everybody is happy and get what they want.

spaced-out 7y ago

How about we just make all taxes voluntary?

zentiggr 7y ago
And military service too... reassign every recruiter to any other duty and let people sign up only if they believe it's a proper thing to do. (My brother was an Army recruiter for his last couple of years before retirement. Oh man the stories he had. How to sour a career no matter how well any of the prior years went.)
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  First, thanks to your brother for his service. I enlisted right out of high school, and yes, my recruiter told me some whoppers. My favorite (boy, was I green): "They don't count weekends days in basic training. You get weekends off!"

r00fus 7y ago

One or two people won't make a difference. The entire policy of taxation in the US needs to change. That's why we have government because otherwise we can't have nice things (note: in many cases that even doesn't work either but that's the imperfect system we have and need to improve - the alternatives like "self regulation" have been proven throughout history to not be scalable).

tathougies 7y ago
> the alternatives like "self regulation" have been proven throughout history to not be scalable On the contrary, self-regulation is now the preferred form of government. It used to be the case that most governments were led by an entity outside the government and outside the purview of the state and society (a monarch). Today most countries are democracies, which means self-regulation of the society by the people that constitute that society, typically via some kind of elected leadership positions (but not always). Self-regulating markets have also proven to be the most straightforward way to feed and house and provide a middle-class life for most people. Certainly superior to the more planned economies that preceded it.

triceratops 7y ago

If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich people who don't do it. This is no different than saying "We don't need laws to prevent dumping industrial waste into water. If your company thinks it's so important, they should just do it." Which will just result in the environmentally-conscious company being outcompeted by everyone else.

tathougies 7y ago
> If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich people who don't do it. Oh boo hoo. I feel so sorry for the multi billionaire who has one less billion than the other multi billionaire.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't do this here. The idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html