3 ms·

>The obvious conclusion: increasing wealth concentration is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism that probably has very little to do with merit. The only so

>The obvious conclusion: increasing wealth concentration is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism that probably has very little to do with merit. The only solution: eat the rich. This is exactly why we need progressive asset taxes. Income tax should be almost abolished, it can be something like 10% on all types of income and then nobody needs to bother with tax evasions on that. 5-15% VAT or sales tax to generate revenue for the places where people congregate and do their business, the rest of society should be funded by asset taxes.

LeonB 3y ago
Vat is irredeemably regressive. I suspect you know that. Income tax fails in its progressive goals not because it is inherently bad (like VAT) but because the tax laws are written by the richest players. (Ask a poor person how much influence they’ve had on tax law, and then ask a top 5 accountancy firm. This isn’t a controversial statement.)
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  I know VAT is regressive but if it is low enough it doesn't really matter. We do need revenue streams for municipalities and local governments and VAT can be a nice part of that. I would support a low flat income tax for two reasons. It is simple, if all income is taxed at 10% you just pay that and there are no opportunities (or frankly the need) for some fancy loopholes to avoid it. The second reason is that I do like the idea that everyone pays tax, it is part of being a citizen with all the rights and responsibilites that comes with it.
  - LeonB 3y ago
    I believe you, but it’s just incredibly naive. If “all things were equal” and there were no assumptions and we were all starting at an equal position there “may” be some merit in this position. But that’s just… nothing, absolutely nothing, like where we are. And if it seems like it’s fairly similar to where we are: your education has been very blinkered. I say that with compassion, btw. The scale of current inequality is so astronomical it’s beyond comprehension.
    - Swenrekcah 3y ago
      What is naive? I don't quite follow you. Since you're so worldly and educated ;) What would you suggest be done about inequality if not taxation of wealth and stronger representation of the "normal people"?
      - LeonB 3y ago
        The vast majority of wealth is concentrated in a very small number of people - and not directly attributable to those people - due to local and international tax avoidance. If I’m so smart what is my simple and obvious solution to this global catastrophe? It’s pretty damn hard to put it all on me to solve in one hacker news comment. Sheesh.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        >The vast majority of wealth is concentrated in a very small number of people - and not directly attributable to those people - due to local and international tax avoidance. Yes, this is known. I just asked you to clarify what it was I said that is so naieve?
        LeonB 3y ago
        You asked two questions. Sorry if I answered the wrong one. I think when the person above suggested eating the rich you literally believed them and you’ve been on a misguided tear ever since. There’s little I can do to help you, but by god I’m glad I tried. Best wishes.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        This isn’t an adverserial exchange my friend. I’m sorry if I got on your nerve with the “worldly and educated” jab, but you were (and have continued to be) quite condescending in your responses. Have a nice day :)
        3y ago
- rocqua 3y ago
  I think an ideal system has a marginal tax rate that decreases with income, with an effective tax rate that increases over time. A simplified version of this: - two tax brackets, 60% tax over all income below 40 000, 40% tax over all income above 40 000. - A deduction from taxable-income for everyone of about 25 000 - Negative income after deductions means you 'pay negative tax', i.e. you get money from the state - All other subsidies to people come in the form of more deductions from taxable income. This is effectively a universal basic income of 15 000. It remains a progressive system, and ensures that taxable income deductions are actually valuable to people short on cash. The numbers obivously need tweaking.

LeonB 3y ago

Vat is irredeemably regressive. I suspect you know that. Income tax fails in its progressive goals not because it is inherently bad (like VAT) but because the tax laws are written by the richest players. (Ask a poor person how much influence they’ve had on tax law, and then ask a top 5 accountancy firm. This isn’t a controversial statement.)

Swenrekcah 3y ago
I know VAT is regressive but if it is low enough it doesn't really matter. We do need revenue streams for municipalities and local governments and VAT can be a nice part of that. I would support a low flat income tax for two reasons. It is simple, if all income is taxed at 10% you just pay that and there are no opportunities (or frankly the need) for some fancy loopholes to avoid it. The second reason is that I do like the idea that everyone pays tax, it is part of being a citizen with all the rights and responsibilites that comes with it.
- LeonB 3y ago
  I believe you, but it’s just incredibly naive. If “all things were equal” and there were no assumptions and we were all starting at an equal position there “may” be some merit in this position. But that’s just… nothing, absolutely nothing, like where we are. And if it seems like it’s fairly similar to where we are: your education has been very blinkered. I say that with compassion, btw. The scale of current inequality is so astronomical it’s beyond comprehension.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    What is naive? I don't quite follow you. Since you're so worldly and educated ;) What would you suggest be done about inequality if not taxation of wealth and stronger representation of the "normal people"?
    - LeonB 3y ago
      The vast majority of wealth is concentrated in a very small number of people - and not directly attributable to those people - due to local and international tax avoidance. If I’m so smart what is my simple and obvious solution to this global catastrophe? It’s pretty damn hard to put it all on me to solve in one hacker news comment. Sheesh.
      - Swenrekcah 3y ago
        >The vast majority of wealth is concentrated in a very small number of people - and not directly attributable to those people - due to local and international tax avoidance. Yes, this is known. I just asked you to clarify what it was I said that is so naieve?
        LeonB 3y ago
        You asked two questions. Sorry if I answered the wrong one. I think when the person above suggested eating the rich you literally believed them and you’ve been on a misguided tear ever since. There’s little I can do to help you, but by god I’m glad I tried. Best wishes.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        This isn’t an adverserial exchange my friend. I’m sorry if I got on your nerve with the “worldly and educated” jab, but you were (and have continued to be) quite condescending in your responses. Have a nice day :)
        3y ago
rocqua 3y ago
I think an ideal system has a marginal tax rate that decreases with income, with an effective tax rate that increases over time. A simplified version of this: - two tax brackets, 60% tax over all income below 40 000, 40% tax over all income above 40 000. - A deduction from taxable-income for everyone of about 25 000 - Negative income after deductions means you 'pay negative tax', i.e. you get money from the state - All other subsidies to people come in the form of more deductions from taxable income. This is effectively a universal basic income of 15 000. It remains a progressive system, and ensures that taxable income deductions are actually valuable to people short on cash. The numbers obivously need tweaking.