5 ms·

It's a bad point of view to look at government services consumed. The very rich live in a system that allows them to have gotten their wealth. They benefit gr

It's a bad point of view to look at government services consumed. The very rich live in a system that allows them to have gotten their wealth. They benefit greatly from living in our society. They should pay to maintain it. What matters is not the percentage of all taxes they pay but what percentage of wealth they control and how much they can pay. I agree with Christ in this matter. To whom much is given much is expected.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
As the numbers I provided demonstrate, the rich do pay to maintain it. It's the poor who mostly don't pay. The US is already more progressive than the rest of the world - how much more progressive do you believe it needs to become?
- yequalsx 14y ago
  Does income tax include capital gains in the article? I think not but am not sure on this. One must look at the ratio of wealth controlled to the ratio of total expenditures of government. For the very wealthy that ratio should be higher than it is for any other group. That's the idea behind a progressive system. The focus on income taxes is a red herring. The poor pay a disproportionate amount in regressive taxes such as sales tax. One must look at overall burdens and overall ability to pay. Proportionately the more one has the more one should pay.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Does income tax include capital gains in the article? If you read the article, you'd know that capital gains are included (since cap gains are included on federal income tax returns). The poor pay a disproportionate amount in regressive taxes such as sales tax. One must look at overall burdens and overall ability to pay. Yes, the poor consume disproportionately, and pay a disproportionate amount of consumption taxes. All that says is the rich consume far less than they could, and are much less of a drain on society than the poor.
    - yequalsx 14y ago
      Your disdain for poor people is shocking. People need to eat to live and in most places in the U.S. food is taxed in a regressive way. The proportion of tax poorer people pay for food is much higher than for the very wealthy. One must look at all tax receipts and not concentrate on income taxes. The very wealthy are not paying enough to sustain the system that they benefit from. I did read the article. It wasn't clear if capital gains taxes were included. Capital gains are not income as far I know. I mentioned my ignorance on this point. Clearly I indicated reading the article. Nitpicking on this is also a red herring. The point remains that total tax receipts is the relevant statistic in comparison to total wealth. The top 20% of the U.S. control 93% of the financial wealth in the country. I don't think they are paying 93% of the total tax burden. Taxes are also at a 50 year low and so it's clear that the very wealthy can pay more and should.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Their would be no wealthy without the poor consuming their food, living in their buildings, or paying for the utilities they provide. This is not a "drain" on society; it is on of the vital mechanisms which allows the wealthy to have their wealth in the first place. On the other hand, yequalsx, your characterization of the poor as a "drain on society" speaks volumes of how little you understand income disparity.
    - yequalsx 14y ago
      I didn't refer to the poor as a drain on society. Yummyfajitas did. Perhaps you meant to critique some other aspect of what I wrote?
      - anothermachine 14y ago
        rprasad was responding to yummyfajitas https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182231, and misread the byline
        rprasad 14y ago
        Yep, sorry. Ever since the crazy mods took over I've been having issues with reply links disappearing or linking to the wrong comments.
    - rdl 14y ago
      There is some subset of the world's population who are a net negative in wealth creation, especially those living in expensive markets. (The very ill, mentally ill or drug addicted homeless people, most of the elderly.) Children also count if you're looking on a short time horizon, but you could do discounted future incomes to account for that. There are values other than pure economic utility, but from a pure economic utility function, a poor person consuming medical services doesn't help the economy. The money paid (via taxes to doctors, equipment vendors, etc.) would be more efficiently used for another purpose -- it's the broken window fallacy. It would be interesting to figure out where the net consumers stop and net producers begin, and maybe graph that over time and culture. There are a lot of good reasons to favor an economy which is slightly less productive than optimum, but where a larger percentage of people are net-contributors; redistributing income or wealth from the positive outliers to invest in making more people net-contributors, vs. trying to maximize the total contribution, is probably a good social choice. But it's not the purely efficient choice.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

As the numbers I provided demonstrate, the rich do pay to maintain it. It's the poor who mostly don't pay. The US is already more progressive than the rest of the world - how much more progressive do you believe it needs to become?

yequalsx 14y ago
Does income tax include capital gains in the article? I think not but am not sure on this. One must look at the ratio of wealth controlled to the ratio of total expenditures of government. For the very wealthy that ratio should be higher than it is for any other group. That's the idea behind a progressive system. The focus on income taxes is a red herring. The poor pay a disproportionate amount in regressive taxes such as sales tax. One must look at overall burdens and overall ability to pay. Proportionately the more one has the more one should pay.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Does income tax include capital gains in the article? If you read the article, you'd know that capital gains are included (since cap gains are included on federal income tax returns). The poor pay a disproportionate amount in regressive taxes such as sales tax. One must look at overall burdens and overall ability to pay. Yes, the poor consume disproportionately, and pay a disproportionate amount of consumption taxes. All that says is the rich consume far less than they could, and are much less of a drain on society than the poor.
  - yequalsx 14y ago
    Your disdain for poor people is shocking. People need to eat to live and in most places in the U.S. food is taxed in a regressive way. The proportion of tax poorer people pay for food is much higher than for the very wealthy. One must look at all tax receipts and not concentrate on income taxes. The very wealthy are not paying enough to sustain the system that they benefit from. I did read the article. It wasn't clear if capital gains taxes were included. Capital gains are not income as far I know. I mentioned my ignorance on this point. Clearly I indicated reading the article. Nitpicking on this is also a red herring. The point remains that total tax receipts is the relevant statistic in comparison to total wealth. The top 20% of the U.S. control 93% of the financial wealth in the country. I don't think they are paying 93% of the total tax burden. Taxes are also at a 50 year low and so it's clear that the very wealthy can pay more and should.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Their would be no wealthy without the poor consuming their food, living in their buildings, or paying for the utilities they provide. This is not a "drain" on society; it is on of the vital mechanisms which allows the wealthy to have their wealth in the first place. On the other hand, yequalsx, your characterization of the poor as a "drain on society" speaks volumes of how little you understand income disparity.
  - yequalsx 14y ago
    I didn't refer to the poor as a drain on society. Yummyfajitas did. Perhaps you meant to critique some other aspect of what I wrote?
    - anothermachine 14y ago
      rprasad was responding to yummyfajitas https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182231, and misread the byline
      - rprasad 14y ago
        Yep, sorry. Ever since the crazy mods took over I've been having issues with reply links disappearing or linking to the wrong comments.
  - rdl 14y ago
    There is some subset of the world's population who are a net negative in wealth creation, especially those living in expensive markets. (The very ill, mentally ill or drug addicted homeless people, most of the elderly.) Children also count if you're looking on a short time horizon, but you could do discounted future incomes to account for that. There are values other than pure economic utility, but from a pure economic utility function, a poor person consuming medical services doesn't help the economy. The money paid (via taxes to doctors, equipment vendors, etc.) would be more efficiently used for another purpose -- it's the broken window fallacy. It would be interesting to figure out where the net consumers stop and net producers begin, and maybe graph that over time and culture. There are a lot of good reasons to favor an economy which is slightly less productive than optimum, but where a larger percentage of people are net-contributors; redistributing income or wealth from the positive outliers to invest in making more people net-contributors, vs. trying to maximize the total contribution, is probably a good social choice. But it's not the purely efficient choice.