3 ms·

>It is trivially fixable, with taxes. No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. >Progressive tax rates reflect the basi

>It is trivially fixable, with taxes. No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. >Progressive tax rates reflect the basic economic concept of the "marginal utility of money". I know, but so what? The exact same goes for constant rates. >If you earn $10k/yr, and extra $1k is a big deal, and can have profound impacts on your life. If you earn $100k/yr, an extra $1k is much less of a big deal. If you earn $1M/yr, an extra $1k is just noise. Why are you arguing against some fantasy? Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up. Why even reply if you make this bad faith arguments? You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. >It would be preferable if we used a continuous function Indeed. Namely a constant function.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well, if you can temporarily ignore the racism and sexism that made its success unevenly distributed. That was accompanied by (and partly explained by) high marginal tax rates. You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. > As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. > You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. > Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Flat tax rate, not a flat fixed-amount head tax. Those are way too different things, I don't think any politician who values their livelihood would propose a head tax.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well It did nothing to stop extremely rich people existing. It was an utter failure by your goal. >You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. It means the tax rate increases with income. Quite unambigous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax >This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. Yes it is. It is very basic mathematics. Do you not understand how taxes work? >Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. With progressive taxes working for 30 hours instead of 40 with same hourly wage before taxes means that after taxes your hourly rate for 30 hours is higher than for 40 hours (assuming the taxes don't just align to be flat in that region). This is not debatable, it is an explicit property of progressive tax rates. >Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax. Are you serious? I don't want to attack you personally, but that is fourth grade math or civics you just failed.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    HN requests that we avoid tone policing, but your insults are not appreciated nor necessary. It seems that we have flown by each other with insufficiently precise terminology. I agree that progressive taxation means that you receieve a lower after-tax hourly rate on income that puts you into higher tax brackets. However, you continue to receive a higher after-tax income than the person who, for any reason, declined or did not perform that additional work (because the higher rate never reduces your effectively hourly rate for the last hourto zero) Which is reflective of the precise point of progressive taxation. The dollars you earn that put you into each successively higher tax bracket would (if the brackets are designed correctly) be of less and less marginal utility to you, and thus the impact of you losing more of them to taxation is similarly reduced. With the current tax brackets for the USA, you could annotate them as follows: 0 - 13850 : critical income, no taxation 13850 - 24850 : 13850 wasn't even livable, so you pay only 10% on any extra 24850 - 58575 : 24850 was vaguely livable, so you pay 12% on the extra 58575 - 109225: 58575 was getting comfortable, so you pay 22% on the extra 109225 - 195950: you're now firmly into comfortable life, so you pay 24% on the extra and so on, up to: $591975: you've already more than 0.5M in income, any more is of near zero marginal utility so we tax the extra at (shock! horror!) 37% The alternative - a flat rate - means that every extra dollar of income (over some standard deduction) is taxed at the same rate regardless of its marginal utility. By definition, this means that people with lower incomes "feel" the tax burden much more than people with higher incomes. The "last" $1000 they earn is of significant marginal utility to them, but is taxed at the same rate as someone for whom their last $1000 is of near-zero marginal utility. That isn't a fair way to share tax burdens.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

> No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well, if you can temporarily ignore the racism and sexism that made its success unevenly distributed. That was accompanied by (and partly explained by) high marginal tax rates. You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. > As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. > You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. > Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Flat tax rate, not a flat fixed-amount head tax. Those are way too different things, I don't think any politician who values their livelihood would propose a head tax.
constantcrying 3y ago
>Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well It did nothing to stop extremely rich people existing. It was an utter failure by your goal. >You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. It means the tax rate increases with income. Quite unambigous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax >This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. Yes it is. It is very basic mathematics. Do you not understand how taxes work? >Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. With progressive taxes working for 30 hours instead of 40 with same hourly wage before taxes means that after taxes your hourly rate for 30 hours is higher than for 40 hours (assuming the taxes don't just align to be flat in that region). This is not debatable, it is an explicit property of progressive tax rates. >Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax. Are you serious? I don't want to attack you personally, but that is fourth grade math or civics you just failed.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  HN requests that we avoid tone policing, but your insults are not appreciated nor necessary. It seems that we have flown by each other with insufficiently precise terminology. I agree that progressive taxation means that you receieve a lower after-tax hourly rate on income that puts you into higher tax brackets. However, you continue to receive a higher after-tax income than the person who, for any reason, declined or did not perform that additional work (because the higher rate never reduces your effectively hourly rate for the last hourto zero) Which is reflective of the precise point of progressive taxation. The dollars you earn that put you into each successively higher tax bracket would (if the brackets are designed correctly) be of less and less marginal utility to you, and thus the impact of you losing more of them to taxation is similarly reduced. With the current tax brackets for the USA, you could annotate them as follows: 0 - 13850 : critical income, no taxation 13850 - 24850 : 13850 wasn't even livable, so you pay only 10% on any extra 24850 - 58575 : 24850 was vaguely livable, so you pay 12% on the extra 58575 - 109225: 58575 was getting comfortable, so you pay 22% on the extra 109225 - 195950: you're now firmly into comfortable life, so you pay 24% on the extra and so on, up to: $591975: you've already more than 0.5M in income, any more is of near zero marginal utility so we tax the extra at (shock! horror!) 37% The alternative - a flat rate - means that every extra dollar of income (over some standard deduction) is taxed at the same rate regardless of its marginal utility. By definition, this means that people with lower incomes "feel" the tax burden much more than people with higher incomes. The "last" $1000 they earn is of significant marginal utility to them, but is taxed at the same rate as someone for whom their last $1000 is of near-zero marginal utility. That isn't a fair way to share tax burdens.