12 ms·
56% income tax? That. is. insane.
by driverdan 15y ago
56% income tax? That. is. insane.
- Volpe 15y agoSure if you believe in inequality/social injustice... I believe most first-world economies have some form of wealth redistribution[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth
- marvin 15y agoI know socialist sentiments aren't very popular on Hacker News, but some form of wealth redistribution is going to be _necessary_ in a couple of years if the richest continue getting richer (which they will, due to technological advancement) and automation becomes so efficient that most simple jobs disappear. A considerable part of the population will simply be unable to do meaningful work in the private sector. The Luddite argument will eventually be dead, at least for certain groups in society. So the choice is letting them starve, or subsidize them somehow. How this "wealth redistribution" should happen is an entirely different question, but a flat tax rate including on capital (very hard to implement in practice) or simply flat taxation of everyone above a certain, very high net worth are possibilities. Note that certain countries already have de facto subsidy systems for low-income/unemployable groups already, e.g. Norway.
- bad_user 15y agoThe rich always kept getting richer over the years and the poor kept getting poorer. There's nothing new here. Eventually, we all die. Plus business models and companies get disrupted by technology all the time. taxation of everyone above a certain, very high net worth are possibilities In my country the contribution for health-care is 5.5% of my income. This means that I'm paying 10-20 times more than people that sit on their asses all day, doing nothing and complaining about budget cuts. Giving money to the poor is not the solution. It just encourages sloth.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- itmag 15y agoI think we should just have a Minimum Guaranteed Income and be done with it. Let's stop pretending that full employment if the holy grail of life. More reading: http://www.xamuel.com/ten-reasons-for-guaranteed-minimum-income/ http://www.xamuel.com/ten-reasons-for-guaranteed-minimum-inc...
- tjogin 15y agoPaying for health care and high education is insane.
- fckin 15y agoNice strawman
- gaius 15y agoSo long as that is what you are paying for (as opposed to, cushy jobs-for-life for bureaucrats, which is why in the UK we resent high taxes)
- afterburner 15y agoDon't worry, there are lots of cushy, jobs-for-life bureaucrats in private industry too.
- gaius 15y agoThat's between them and their shareholders.
- afterburner 15y agoAnd yet plenty of inefficient companies and executives exist. Harmful even.
- ontIgnoreRealit 15y ago56% is a sane top tax rate if you feel that you make enough money and you feel that you want to contribute to the infrastructure and services that the government provides. 56% is a low top marginal tax rate. The United States had a top marginal income tax rate that was higher than 56% between 1932 and 1980. It was 90% between 1950 and 1963. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...
- fckin 15y agoExactly, just look at the Great Depression. 63% throughout. Very sane.
- jandrewrogers 15y agoTo be fair though, the effective net tax rate in the US was not much different than today back then. That 90% tax rate was essentially fictional in that no one paid anything close to it after deductions and loopholes. It was theater so that politicians could claim the wealthy were paying high taxes. Reducing the marginal tax rates on income in the US was largely revenue neutral due to the incremental elimination of loopholes, credits, and deductions concurrent with those reductions. If we actually reverted to the tax policies of 1950s I do not think you would be impressed with the distribution of taxes paid. Ironically, the low marginal tax rates we have today reflect the historical truth more closely than the nominally high rates of the past.
- Chrono 15y agoMy personal opinion is that anything over 50% is too much. If I work hard and earn a lot of money I should at least be allowed to keep half. That said, to reach the top income bracket and get a tax between 52-59.9% (Depending on where in Sweden you live) you have to earn somewhere around $80k/yr. Not entire sure about the number but it is in that region. I wouldn't consider that very wealthy, especially not if you live in Stockholm, expensive city to live in.
- toadi 15y agoWhy no tax on making money from money. These high tax rates are on money not an people with a lot of money making money...
- hessenwolf 15y agoI must be around that here in Germany, but my life quality is so insanely high that I can't complain. And if I become unemployed, go back to education, or become sick, it'll make zero difference to my living quality.
- DasIch 15y agoGermany has a limit at 42% or 45% if you qualify as "rich".
- orjan 15y agoI found this list of marginal taxes: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_hig_mar_tax_rat_ind_rat-highest-marginal-tax-rate-individual http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_hig_mar_tax_rat_ind_ra... While Sweden is high on the list, they're actually not in the number one spot -- that's Denmark. USA is in 37th place with a marginal tax of 35%.
- slavak 15y agoWow. Finally my country places high on an important list!
- rmc 15y agoWhat you're don't want the place to wind up like America, do you? (This is how some places view USA, as an example of what to avoid)
- zerostar07 15y agoI haven't seen it discussed much, but i actually find it odd that tax brackets have an upper end. The tax rate should be a formula that keeps increasing with wealth.
- rplnt 15y agoThat's how % works.
- DasIch 15y agoWe are talking about an increase in the rate e.g. the relative amount not the absolute amount. That's definitely not how % works.
- rplnt 15y agoYeah, I understood that. But I tried to point out that it is really unnecessary as the total amount paid is much higher thanks to the fact that taxes are paid in percents. It's a really nice idea for populists but probably wouldn't be good in reality. What have to be done is limit the amount of loopholes where really reach are able to much less then they should.
- ansgri 15y agoThen you'd have a point where tax = 100%, or at least where income after taxes doesn't increase with increase in income before taxes. Thus you completely destroy the motivation of some very important enterpreneurs that just want to earn more than anyone. And they build their business somewhere else.
- jarek 15y ago> some very important enterpreneurs that just want to earn more than anyone Examples of important entrepreneurs motivated solely, or even primarily, by earning more than anyone, please?
- zerostar07 15y ago