4 ms·

Because a lot of people, including many economists, believe capital accumulating endlessly to the same class of thousand-ish people is bad. A flat income tax ex

Because a lot of people, including many economists, believe capital accumulating endlessly to the same class of thousand-ish people is bad. A flat income tax exacerbates wealth inequality considerably.

ty6853 2y ago
Our tax now is worse than flat. Warren buffet brags about paying less % than his secretary.
- TimorousBestie 2y ago
  Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures. Comparing your ideal flat income tax with the current system is apples to oranges.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    >>Why don't they just make the special interests pay their own multi-trillion dollar war bills instead of sabotaging US universities with surprise taxes? >Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures. Hence I cannot compare your suggestion with the current system as it is apple to oranges because loopholes would exist. My thesis is a flat tax would help to minimize the very loopholes you damn. The larger the tax code and the more it panders to particular interest, generally the more opportunity for 'loopholes.'
    - westurner 2y ago
      When you say "tax loopholes" I think "corporate welfare," which is sometimes rational but typically exploited. A tax code with fewer loopholes would be more flat (or progressive).
- westurner 2y ago
  IDK if it's bragging or voiced concern.
westurner 2y ago
I don't want to work for a business created by, uh, upper class folks that wouldn't have done it if not for temporary tax breaks by a pandering grifter executive. I believe in a strong middle class and upward mobility for all. I don't think we want businesses that are dependent on war, hate, fear, and division for continued profitability. I don't know whether a flat or a regressive or a progressive tax system is more fair or more total society optimal. I suspect it is true that, Higher income individuals receive more total subsidies than lower-income individuals. You don't want a job at a firm that an already-wealthy founder could only pull off due to short-term tax breaks and wouldn't have founded if taxes go any higher. You want a job at a firm run by people who are going to keep solving for their mission regardless of high taxes due to immediately necessary war expenses, for example. In the interests of long-term economic health and national security of the United States, I don't think they should be cutting science and medical research funding. Science funding has positive returns. Science funding has greater returns than illegal wars (that still aren't paid for). Find 1980 on these charts of tax receipts, GDP, and income inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 : > "Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S > "Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 re: income inequality: > GINI Index for the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA Find 1980 on a GINI index chart.
- TimorousBestie 2y ago
  Yeah, I mean, I think we agree on most points. I think there’s too many confounding economic factors to look at GINI alone and conclude the 1980 turning point was caused by nerfing the top income tax bracket. But a compelling argument could probably be made with more supporting data, which of course this margin is too narrow to contain and etc.
  - westurner 2y ago

ty6853 2y ago

Our tax now is worse than flat. Warren buffet brags about paying less % than his secretary.

TimorousBestie 2y ago
Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures. Comparing your ideal flat income tax with the current system is apples to oranges.
- ty6853 2y ago
  >>Why don't they just make the special interests pay their own multi-trillion dollar war bills instead of sabotaging US universities with surprise taxes? >Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures. Hence I cannot compare your suggestion with the current system as it is apple to oranges because loopholes would exist. My thesis is a flat tax would help to minimize the very loopholes you damn. The larger the tax code and the more it panders to particular interest, generally the more opportunity for 'loopholes.'
  - westurner 2y ago
    When you say "tax loopholes" I think "corporate welfare," which is sometimes rational but typically exploited. A tax code with fewer loopholes would be more flat (or progressive).
westurner 2y ago
IDK if it's bragging or voiced concern.

westurner 2y ago

I don't want to work for a business created by, uh, upper class folks that wouldn't have done it if not for temporary tax breaks by a pandering grifter executive. I believe in a strong middle class and upward mobility for all. I don't think we want businesses that are dependent on war, hate, fear, and division for continued profitability. I don't know whether a flat or a regressive or a progressive tax system is more fair or more total society optimal. I suspect it is true that, Higher income individuals receive more total subsidies than lower-income individuals. You don't want a job at a firm that an already-wealthy founder could only pull off due to short-term tax breaks and wouldn't have founded if taxes go any higher. You want a job at a firm run by people who are going to keep solving for their mission regardless of high taxes due to immediately necessary war expenses, for example. In the interests of long-term economic health and national security of the United States, I don't think they should be cutting science and medical research funding. Science funding has positive returns. Science funding has greater returns than illegal wars (that still aren't paid for). Find 1980 on these charts of tax receipts, GDP, and income inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 : > "Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S > "Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 re: income inequality: > GINI Index for the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA Find 1980 on a GINI index chart.

TimorousBestie 2y ago
Yeah, I mean, I think we agree on most points. I think there’s too many confounding economic factors to look at GINI alone and conclude the 1980 turning point was caused by nerfing the top income tax bracket. But a compelling argument could probably be made with more supporting data, which of course this margin is too narrow to contain and etc.
- westurner 2y ago