3 ms·

>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

>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.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >HN requests that we avoid tone policing, but your insults are not appreciated nor necessary. You made absurd errors in your comments and accused politicians of insane policies. >However, you continue to receive a higher after-tax income No. That happens under a certain subset of progressive tax systems. Specifically under bracketted systems working less might result in higher income after taxes. >That isn't a fair way to share tax burdens. Appealing to some notion of fairness is just stupid. Taxes do not exist to make the world fairer, they exist to fund government activities. I think punishing people for working more is pretty unfair. The marginal utility argument is so stupid because it can be used to trivially argue against progressive tax systems. The real consequence of believing in the argument directly implies that nobody should earn more than X, for some amount of income X (like 50k) where after that the marginal utility is so low that it might as well can be given to the state to waste. I am taxed at around 40% by the way.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > accused politicians of insane policies. What I said: "several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax. " This is 100% correct. From the 2015 primary season: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/economy/republican-presidential-candidates-rally-around-flat-tax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/economy/republic... From 1999: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/us/flat-tax-goes-from-snake-oil-to-gop-tonic.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/us/flat-tax-goes-from-sna... I suspect you misread what I wrote as "a flat income tax", which is ironic since it is the terminology actually used by these candidates, even though I understand it to imply a flate tax rate.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      A flat tax rate means e.g. 10%. You claimed it is "everyone pays the same amount". >I suspect you misread what I wrote as "a flat income tax", which is ironic since it is the terminology actually used by these candidates, even though I understand it to imply a flate tax rate. You are the one single person which doesn't understand that the politicians mean e.g. "10%". But instead you thought they meant everyone pays 1k. Just stop pretending.

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.

constantcrying 3y ago
>HN requests that we avoid tone policing, but your insults are not appreciated nor necessary. You made absurd errors in your comments and accused politicians of insane policies. >However, you continue to receive a higher after-tax income No. That happens under a certain subset of progressive tax systems. Specifically under bracketted systems working less might result in higher income after taxes. >That isn't a fair way to share tax burdens. Appealing to some notion of fairness is just stupid. Taxes do not exist to make the world fairer, they exist to fund government activities. I think punishing people for working more is pretty unfair. The marginal utility argument is so stupid because it can be used to trivially argue against progressive tax systems. The real consequence of believing in the argument directly implies that nobody should earn more than X, for some amount of income X (like 50k) where after that the marginal utility is so low that it might as well can be given to the state to waste. I am taxed at around 40% by the way.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > accused politicians of insane policies. What I said: "several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax. " This is 100% correct. From the 2015 primary season: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/economy/republican-presidential-candidates-rally-around-flat-tax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/economy/republic... From 1999: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/us/flat-tax-goes-from-snake-oil-to-gop-tonic.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/us/flat-tax-goes-from-sna... I suspect you misread what I wrote as "a flat income tax", which is ironic since it is the terminology actually used by these candidates, even though I understand it to imply a flate tax rate.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    A flat tax rate means e.g. 10%. You claimed it is "everyone pays the same amount". >I suspect you misread what I wrote as "a flat income tax", which is ironic since it is the terminology actually used by these candidates, even though I understand it to imply a flate tax rate. You are the one single person which doesn't understand that the politicians mean e.g. "10%". But instead you thought they meant everyone pays 1k. Just stop pretending.