10 ms·

The proposal is that the exemption will only drop to 50% if you're earning over 400k.

germandiago 5y ago
Exemption? I would call it "ability to not be stolen".The vocabulary of states is very evil. By exemption it lookslike they are saying "we forgive you and do not make you pay what belongs to us" when in fact it is just the opposite, they take what does not belong to them. I am quite pissed with the political mafia. Not only there. Everywhere.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The alternative isn't no government, it's getting the same treatment from a different authority with even less recourse. You're just blaming the messenger.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    no. I am not blaming anyone. Seriously. I just say that this vocabulary is a shitshow to brainwash: taxing is putting a penalty on your efforts. There is no more to it. You can give it 1million justifications, that will not change. Sorryif I sound harsh. I would likea place where politicians do not abuse us like this.
    - AlexandrB 5y ago
      If you want to talk about brainwashing, have you considered how the company you work for puts a penalty on your efforts? Their literal model is paying you less than the value you provide and recording that difference as profit. The rate they collect is often much greater than 10% of your efforts.
      - germandiago 5y ago
        Ok, let us talk about it. 1. how do you calculate that profit? 1.a. given that you could do it by yourself, why do we work for a company instead of running a business ourselves? are you sure you are not missing some variables there? 2. does the employer have any additional risk? In my country, for example, firing a person is quite a bit of money. This is effectively an insurance to pay for the worker, besides the taxes they already pay (a penalty for the economic activity, basically, or, as I think of it: a theft) 3. do I do work for my employer forced by them or I chose to work there because it is my best alternative without coactively forcing someone to do something they do not want? Of course we always want higher salaries. But taxes do not work like this: in taxing systems you do not have a choice to pay or not to pay, you pay and that's all the story. You also have no word on where your money goes or any control over it. The people who manage it do not pay penalties for mismanaging it. In private companies I can assure you this is much more sensitive and you are much more careful with what you do than in public instances. Please, let us keep the conversation rational. I would like you to discuss this topic rationally. Because I would really like to understand it. P.S.: noone explained me yet why taxes are not theft. For me they are, I said, because they are coactively putting penalties on something you produce. Coactively, not even by mutual contract as in the case you mention from the employer. Of course we want more from the employer and the employer more of us, but, at the end, this is a mutual contract, not a do it or I put you in jail.
        AlexandrB 5y ago
        You're absolutely right about 1.a., but you're missing the fact that the same is true for the relationship between companies (and their owners) and the government. So just as the typical employee often could not generate the same value without the infrastructure and resources of the company, that company could not generate the same value without the infrastructure and resources provided by the state. My entire original "profit is theft" argument rests on the same kind of assumptions as your "taxes are theft" argument. Namely that in both cases the affected party is not getting anything for their contributions and could have done it themselves. In my mind the only difference here is that taxes are explicit and transparent, while "capturing excess productivity" is hidden. The former seems much more honest in this regard. Edit: > You also have no word on where your money goes or any control over it. The people who manage it do not pay penalties for mismanaging it. In private companies I can assure you this is much more sensitive and you are much more careful with what you do than in public instances. This is patently false. Not only do you have less control over how your employer spends your excess value than how your government spends your taxes (I don't recall being able to vote for my CEO), but corruption in companies is not uncommon. It's just less visible because companies are allowed much more secrecy than governments. This is not any better. It's also rare for a CEO to be seriously punished for running a company into the ground. "Failing upwards" is common.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      There are ~15 countries that don't have income taxes. Some of them are even quite nice. I suggest you move if taxes offend you so much. It's not like taxes go into a black whole. They pay for schools, roads, police, military protection, and a host of other services. We can certainly debate the relative allocation of funds, but going tax free isn't something most large nations can do. The nations that are tax free tend to be extremely wealthy on oil money (Bahrain) OR borderline anarchy (Somalia).
      - germandiago 5y ago
        Yes I have been actively looking for reasonable countries. Not because I think I cannot pay but because I am convinced we should NOT unless we authorize someone to do it. Of course you would lose the services you do not pay for. I do not need 0% taxes. But you know what? I do not need 54% income tax + 21% VAT plus many others that amount to 70% of my earnings and they laugh at us in our faces. I really do not need that. Here I talk about Spain. Let us leave USA apart bc I do not know enough. Just know that they are sailing in the same direction so if I were you guys, I would be a bit careful. In the real world I do not need a 0% taxes country either. Of course. Greetings and thanks for the suggestion.
        alistairSH 5y ago
        Where are you that you pay 54% income tax and then 21% VAT? I assumed you were in the US, since US tax breaks were the topic.
        germandiago 5y ago
        I am spanish (54% over 60,000 euros in my "State"). But I see the US going in the same stupid direction of taxing and overregulation and it catches my eye. Seriously, do not break it. I admire the founders of USA more than any other people worldwide. The ideas of real freedom were born there, even if there are, like everywhere else, dark episodes.
- hcknwscommenter 5y ago
  By the same logic, if you every drive or walk or bike on a road or sidewalk, you are taking what does not belong to you. If you ever eat food that is healthy and nutritious because the government has tested and regulated food production, you are taking what doesn't belong to you. If you live in your home safe and secure from crime . . . Taxes pay for basic infrastructure, defense, education, and regulation. These things that taxes pay for are good for us and you use them every day. You want them for free apparently. Do you seriously think you would be better off having to procure all those benefits yourself as an individual?
  - germandiago 5y ago
    there are things we pay and maybe I would pay that are good for all of us. There are also things I would pay for even if my neighbour cannot and would let them use them or even consider it common property, as it is today. What I do not want is a fully coactive, unjust system with artificial regulations and countless state monopolies on top of me. I do not think spoiling half of the effort to someone is a promising proposition or that it is what it takes to sustain this. Needless to say, I am against welfare in a setup where it must be paid with debt. This is not what a responsible person does at home, why they can do it with taxes? Who told you I need the government to not eat poison? This is so absurd. They have a chain of responsibility to do that today, maybe, but you could have certifications also, without any government intervention. Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. You think because the government is not there people do not care anymore whether they eat poison or not? Seriously? There is a clear demand for someone saying: this is safe food. It does not need to be the government. It just happens it is them who do it today. This is like saying people would not want schools if the government does not pay for them or hospitals. It is totally absurd. Things exist because people value them. And many do exist with no value because someone creates artificially from our taxes stuff. There is no more to it. BTW, security, this is something many of you do not get either: you are safe because people around you have a mindset of respecting others, mainly and above everything else. That is why there are districts where you can go 2:00 a.m. safe and you know nothing will happen to you and some you would not go even at 20:00 p.m. a normal day! It has nothing to do with the police, or to a very little extent. You cannot have a police after each person. If someone takes out a gun and shoots you it will happen anyway. If the police gave you unconditional security then that could not happen. On the other side, if you go to a prison, you have state workers every few meters. Is it any safer that good districts that are police-free? No way!! They are not. There are people passing drugs and violence, more so than anywhere else. Security comes first, and foremost, by what people are willing to respect or not, and later, there are outliers, yes, but this is not at all all the story.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dsugarman 5y ago
Why are you assuming that means you need to make 400k / yr, you could make 50k in salary and sell stock worth more than 350k
- Traster 5y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something about this - but the money you get from selling stock isn't income.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    It may not be earned income but it’s income. Capital gains.
    - Traster 5y ago
      No, only the gain is income, the value of the stock is not. In your example you would need your stock to have gained 350k and to sell it all. You could sell 349k this year and pay nothing, and 1k next year and pay nothing.
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    It is for the purpose of calculating your tax rate. Otherwise rich people who have 0 earned income and make all their money from stocks would pay literally 0%[1] [1] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409
    - Traster 5y ago
      As I said in the other reply, this is wrong. Only the gain is accounted for as income, not the capital. So you basically have two scenarios - you have huge capital and a small gain, in which case you should pay your damn tax. Or you have small capital and a massive gain, in which case you should pay your damn tax. And remember- this is only paid if you chose to sell that amount in a financial year. Oh, and afer you pay your tax, phone up all the people you've met that day and explain to them how you've still payed less tax than they pay on their income despite your income literally being unearned.

Exemption? I would call it "ability to not be stolen".The vocabulary of states is very evil. By exemption it lookslike they are saying "we forgive you and do not make you pay what belongs to us" when in fact it is just the opposite, they take what does not belong to them. I am quite pissed with the political mafia. Not only there. Everywhere.

imtringued 5y ago
The alternative isn't no government, it's getting the same treatment from a different authority with even less recourse. You're just blaming the messenger.
- germandiago 5y ago
  no. I am not blaming anyone. Seriously. I just say that this vocabulary is a shitshow to brainwash: taxing is putting a penalty on your efforts. There is no more to it. You can give it 1million justifications, that will not change. Sorryif I sound harsh. I would likea place where politicians do not abuse us like this.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    If you want to talk about brainwashing, have you considered how the company you work for puts a penalty on your efforts? Their literal model is paying you less than the value you provide and recording that difference as profit. The rate they collect is often much greater than 10% of your efforts.
    - germandiago 5y ago
      Ok, let us talk about it. 1. how do you calculate that profit? 1.a. given that you could do it by yourself, why do we work for a company instead of running a business ourselves? are you sure you are not missing some variables there? 2. does the employer have any additional risk? In my country, for example, firing a person is quite a bit of money. This is effectively an insurance to pay for the worker, besides the taxes they already pay (a penalty for the economic activity, basically, or, as I think of it: a theft) 3. do I do work for my employer forced by them or I chose to work there because it is my best alternative without coactively forcing someone to do something they do not want? Of course we always want higher salaries. But taxes do not work like this: in taxing systems you do not have a choice to pay or not to pay, you pay and that's all the story. You also have no word on where your money goes or any control over it. The people who manage it do not pay penalties for mismanaging it. In private companies I can assure you this is much more sensitive and you are much more careful with what you do than in public instances. Please, let us keep the conversation rational. I would like you to discuss this topic rationally. Because I would really like to understand it. P.S.: noone explained me yet why taxes are not theft. For me they are, I said, because they are coactively putting penalties on something you produce. Coactively, not even by mutual contract as in the case you mention from the employer. Of course we want more from the employer and the employer more of us, but, at the end, this is a mutual contract, not a do it or I put you in jail.
      - AlexandrB 5y ago
        You're absolutely right about 1.a., but you're missing the fact that the same is true for the relationship between companies (and their owners) and the government. So just as the typical employee often could not generate the same value without the infrastructure and resources of the company, that company could not generate the same value without the infrastructure and resources provided by the state. My entire original "profit is theft" argument rests on the same kind of assumptions as your "taxes are theft" argument. Namely that in both cases the affected party is not getting anything for their contributions and could have done it themselves. In my mind the only difference here is that taxes are explicit and transparent, while "capturing excess productivity" is hidden. The former seems much more honest in this regard. Edit: > You also have no word on where your money goes or any control over it. The people who manage it do not pay penalties for mismanaging it. In private companies I can assure you this is much more sensitive and you are much more careful with what you do than in public instances. This is patently false. Not only do you have less control over how your employer spends your excess value than how your government spends your taxes (I don't recall being able to vote for my CEO), but corruption in companies is not uncommon. It's just less visible because companies are allowed much more secrecy than governments. This is not any better. It's also rare for a CEO to be seriously punished for running a company into the ground. "Failing upwards" is common.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    There are ~15 countries that don't have income taxes. Some of them are even quite nice. I suggest you move if taxes offend you so much. It's not like taxes go into a black whole. They pay for schools, roads, police, military protection, and a host of other services. We can certainly debate the relative allocation of funds, but going tax free isn't something most large nations can do. The nations that are tax free tend to be extremely wealthy on oil money (Bahrain) OR borderline anarchy (Somalia).
    - germandiago 5y ago
      Yes I have been actively looking for reasonable countries. Not because I think I cannot pay but because I am convinced we should NOT unless we authorize someone to do it. Of course you would lose the services you do not pay for. I do not need 0% taxes. But you know what? I do not need 54% income tax + 21% VAT plus many others that amount to 70% of my earnings and they laugh at us in our faces. I really do not need that. Here I talk about Spain. Let us leave USA apart bc I do not know enough. Just know that they are sailing in the same direction so if I were you guys, I would be a bit careful. In the real world I do not need a 0% taxes country either. Of course. Greetings and thanks for the suggestion.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        Where are you that you pay 54% income tax and then 21% VAT? I assumed you were in the US, since US tax breaks were the topic.
        germandiago 5y ago
        I am spanish (54% over 60,000 euros in my "State"). But I see the US going in the same stupid direction of taxing and overregulation and it catches my eye. Seriously, do not break it. I admire the founders of USA more than any other people worldwide. The ideas of real freedom were born there, even if there are, like everywhere else, dark episodes.
hcknwscommenter 5y ago
By the same logic, if you every drive or walk or bike on a road or sidewalk, you are taking what does not belong to you. If you ever eat food that is healthy and nutritious because the government has tested and regulated food production, you are taking what doesn't belong to you. If you live in your home safe and secure from crime . . . Taxes pay for basic infrastructure, defense, education, and regulation. These things that taxes pay for are good for us and you use them every day. You want them for free apparently. Do you seriously think you would be better off having to procure all those benefits yourself as an individual?
- germandiago 5y ago
  there are things we pay and maybe I would pay that are good for all of us. There are also things I would pay for even if my neighbour cannot and would let them use them or even consider it common property, as it is today. What I do not want is a fully coactive, unjust system with artificial regulations and countless state monopolies on top of me. I do not think spoiling half of the effort to someone is a promising proposition or that it is what it takes to sustain this. Needless to say, I am against welfare in a setup where it must be paid with debt. This is not what a responsible person does at home, why they can do it with taxes? Who told you I need the government to not eat poison? This is so absurd. They have a chain of responsibility to do that today, maybe, but you could have certifications also, without any government intervention. Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. You think because the government is not there people do not care anymore whether they eat poison or not? Seriously? There is a clear demand for someone saying: this is safe food. It does not need to be the government. It just happens it is them who do it today. This is like saying people would not want schools if the government does not pay for them or hospitals. It is totally absurd. Things exist because people value them. And many do exist with no value because someone creates artificially from our taxes stuff. There is no more to it. BTW, security, this is something many of you do not get either: you are safe because people around you have a mindset of respecting others, mainly and above everything else. That is why there are districts where you can go 2:00 a.m. safe and you know nothing will happen to you and some you would not go even at 20:00 p.m. a normal day! It has nothing to do with the police, or to a very little extent. You cannot have a police after each person. If someone takes out a gun and shoots you it will happen anyway. If the police gave you unconditional security then that could not happen. On the other side, if you go to a prison, you have state workers every few meters. Is it any safer that good districts that are police-free? No way!! They are not. There are people passing drugs and violence, more so than anywhere else. Security comes first, and foremost, by what people are willing to respect or not, and later, there are outliers, yes, but this is not at all all the story.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dsugarman 5y ago

Why are you assuming that means you need to make 400k / yr, you could make 50k in salary and sell stock worth more than 350k

Traster 5y ago
Maybe I'm missing something about this - but the money you get from selling stock isn't income.
- bombcar 5y ago
  It may not be earned income but it’s income. Capital gains.
  - Traster 5y ago
    No, only the gain is income, the value of the stock is not. In your example you would need your stock to have gained 350k and to sell it all. You could sell 349k this year and pay nothing, and 1k next year and pay nothing.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  It is for the purpose of calculating your tax rate. Otherwise rich people who have 0 earned income and make all their money from stocks would pay literally 0%[1] [1] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409
  - Traster 5y ago
    As I said in the other reply, this is wrong. Only the gain is accounted for as income, not the capital. So you basically have two scenarios - you have huge capital and a small gain, in which case you should pay your damn tax. Or you have small capital and a massive gain, in which case you should pay your damn tax. And remember- this is only paid if you chose to sell that amount in a financial year. Oh, and afer you pay your tax, phone up all the people you've met that day and explain to them how you've still payed less tax than they pay on their income despite your income literally being unearned.