5 ms·

No. However, paying tax is hardly an ethical matter. Am I unethical to choose standard deduction because it reduces my tax more than choosing itemized deductio

No. However, paying tax is hardly an ethical matter. Am I unethical to choose standard deduction because it reduces my tax more than choosing itemized deduction? No? Yes? Maybe?

nwienert 5y ago
Do you think media / social media shaming companies for performing elaborate tax dodges helps or hurts put pressure for political action?
- ergocoder 5y ago
  No idea. But it doesn't seem to help much. For example, many Dems shout "tax billionaires" for years. This rallies a lot of people. "Yeah!!! Let's tax them more" we all chant. Then, when Dems is elected, they are raising tax on salaried employees who earn more than 400k a year. (Not sure if they has gone through with it yet) I didn't know I was categorised as a billionnaire.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I suspect people think about wealth on a log scale - in my mind $90 billion and $100 billion are basically the same number despite being rather different. Thinking in terms of orders of magnitude - $400k is a lot closer to $1,000k than the US median income of around 40k. Politics isn't about precise language. They just mean wealthy people. I thought they were pretty up-front about that.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      That's quite ingenuous. It's of course easier to charge more taxes for moderately wealthy employees who don't have a clever tax setup and may need to. Really rich people with clever tax setups will just move out and you'll get no more revenue.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    One of only two Independent senators in Congress shouted "tax billionaires" for years, then when he didn't win the presidency, the billionaires just carried on unmolested.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      There was Warren, too, but your point stands. If we can't hold a president to account for their own campaign promises, it hardly makes sense to hold them to account for the promises of the candidates they defeated...
  - throwaway189262 5y ago
    400k a year is still an obscene amount of money. Likely top 1% in the US and top 0.01% on the planet. Billionaires don't pay income tax, that's why Dems are raising the corporate tax rate too. They're also looking at increasing estate tax and capital gains tax, and those almost exclusively effect the ultra rich
    - nec4b 5y ago
      >400k a year is still an obscene amount of money. Some people more likely have an obscene amount of envy to those who are more successful.
      - throwaway189262 5y ago
        Please. I work in tech too and get the same crazy salary everyone else does. You really wondering if someone on HN is a secret poor person because they're willing to admit they're overpaid? I grew up broke and understand how fortunate I am. I'm completely fine with paying a few percent more marginal tax rate. I have thousands of disposable income a month like most of us here. I doubt I would even notice.
        nec4b 5y ago
        No, I'm not wandering. I just don't understand the self hate or the constant obsession with ranking people based on paychecks. Why would you ever think 400k is obscene or crazy amount of money? Companies that those developers work for, earn 10 times as much per developer. I wish every developer could be payed as much or more if possible. Do you find it shameful when other people find value in what developers do and are ready to pay them a lot of money for that value? I'm sure your company will gladly pay you less if you feel overpaid.
yongjik 5y ago
If the nation decided tax laws for you and you are following the law's intention, I'd say there's nothing unethical about it. If you can call up a senator and say "You had better increase standard deduction to $X for married couples in Montana with three kids and a small business, or I'll have to rethink my campaign contribution," and you happen to be married in Montana with three kids and a small business, I'd say it's clearly unethical. I think companies like Google fall in the latter category.

No. However, paying tax is hardly an ethical matter. Am I unethical to choose standard deduction because it reduces my tax more than choosing itemized deduction? No? Yes? Maybe?

nwienert 5y ago

Do you think media / social media shaming companies for performing elaborate tax dodges helps or hurts put pressure for political action?

ergocoder 5y ago
No idea. But it doesn't seem to help much. For example, many Dems shout "tax billionaires" for years. This rallies a lot of people. "Yeah!!! Let's tax them more" we all chant. Then, when Dems is elected, they are raising tax on salaried employees who earn more than 400k a year. (Not sure if they has gone through with it yet) I didn't know I was categorised as a billionnaire.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I suspect people think about wealth on a log scale - in my mind $90 billion and $100 billion are basically the same number despite being rather different. Thinking in terms of orders of magnitude - $400k is a lot closer to $1,000k than the US median income of around 40k. Politics isn't about precise language. They just mean wealthy people. I thought they were pretty up-front about that.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    That's quite ingenuous. It's of course easier to charge more taxes for moderately wealthy employees who don't have a clever tax setup and may need to. Really rich people with clever tax setups will just move out and you'll get no more revenue.
- mLuby 5y ago
  One of only two Independent senators in Congress shouted "tax billionaires" for years, then when he didn't win the presidency, the billionaires just carried on unmolested.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    There was Warren, too, but your point stands. If we can't hold a president to account for their own campaign promises, it hardly makes sense to hold them to account for the promises of the candidates they defeated...
- throwaway189262 5y ago
  400k a year is still an obscene amount of money. Likely top 1% in the US and top 0.01% on the planet. Billionaires don't pay income tax, that's why Dems are raising the corporate tax rate too. They're also looking at increasing estate tax and capital gains tax, and those almost exclusively effect the ultra rich
  - nec4b 5y ago
    >400k a year is still an obscene amount of money. Some people more likely have an obscene amount of envy to those who are more successful.
    - throwaway189262 5y ago
      Please. I work in tech too and get the same crazy salary everyone else does. You really wondering if someone on HN is a secret poor person because they're willing to admit they're overpaid? I grew up broke and understand how fortunate I am. I'm completely fine with paying a few percent more marginal tax rate. I have thousands of disposable income a month like most of us here. I doubt I would even notice.
      - nec4b 5y ago
        No, I'm not wandering. I just don't understand the self hate or the constant obsession with ranking people based on paychecks. Why would you ever think 400k is obscene or crazy amount of money? Companies that those developers work for, earn 10 times as much per developer. I wish every developer could be payed as much or more if possible. Do you find it shameful when other people find value in what developers do and are ready to pay them a lot of money for that value? I'm sure your company will gladly pay you less if you feel overpaid.

yongjik 5y ago

If the nation decided tax laws for you and you are following the law's intention, I'd say there's nothing unethical about it. If you can call up a senator and say "You had better increase standard deduction to $X for married couples in Montana with three kids and a small business, or I'll have to rethink my campaign contribution," and you happen to be married in Montana with three kids and a small business, I'd say it's clearly unethical. I think companies like Google fall in the latter category.