4 ms·

Not to get too political on HN, but why increase taxes by nearly 3k on someone making 70k a year? Given the way the apples and googles of the world hoard money

by gxs 14y ago

Not to get too political on HN, but why increase taxes by nearly 3k on someone making 70k a year? Given the way the apples and googles of the world hoard money offshore, and the wealthiest people in the country sitting on billions of dollars (rightfully earned or not) it seems to me like it would make more sense to make them bear a little more of the burden. For example, if you make 300k your taxes are going up only 11%. IF you make 80k, your taxes are going up 16.5%. Just doesn't feel right.

twoodfin 14y ago
The short answer is "What was wrong with Bill Clinton's tax rates in the '90s?" But don't worry. As others have pointed out, it's extremely unlikely that all of GWB's tax cuts will be rolled back.
- muzz 14y ago
  It's a misnomer to call them the "Bush tax cuts". The marginal tax rate cuts were signed by Obama in 2010 and the "cliff" includes things like the Payroll Tax Holiday-- the largest of tax cuts [1]-- which only came about in 2010. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-deutsche-bank-fiscal-cliff-chart-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-deutsche-ban...
gyardley 14y ago
Not to get too political on HN, but the top 10% of earners in the United States already pay ~45% of the taxes, which is a greater share of the burden than anywhere else in the industrialized world. In Germany, for example, the top 10% of earners pay 31% of taxes. In France, they pay 28%, and in Switzerland, only 21%. If the United States wants to have a European level of both social services and spending (a legitimate choice, although not one I'd make), the wealthy can't possibly carry the tax burden alone - it needs to be spread around more equitably, over all tax brackets.
- kip_ 14y ago
  The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income, don't you think that person should be paying more than a 1/(population of the United States) share of the taxes?
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    > The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. Wat. Top 10% — $87,334 http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/
  - crusso 14y ago
    If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income I don't understand this argument. The infrastructure benefits everyone. The opportunity to succeed from that infrastructure is available to everyone. The road that leads to the grocery store benefits the grocer and the countless consumers who use it. Who gets the better side of the bargain and how do you determine the magnitude of that inequality? If anything, public infrastructure tends to help the little guy. Historically, when public services weren't provided, the rich paid for their own needed infrastructure, protective services, etc. Those services were geared exclusively to help the wealthy land owners. If you got protection from the watch patrolling the nearby keep, you were lucky because they weren't really there for you.
- rayiner 14y ago
  This is a mindlessly stupid comparison, because in those countries the top 10% of earners also make a much smaller share of the income. If you look at total taxes, instead of just federal income taxes like the Heritage Foundation likes to do (intellectually bankrupt think tank whores that they are), you'll see that the total US tax burden is pretty flat from median up to the top 1%: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america....
crusso 14y ago
sitting on billions of dollars I don't comprehend your information or intuition on where money is in the economy and how it works. No one with billions is sitting on a big mattress of it. The money is in the economy working in a fairly efficient fashion. That money is capital for business enterprises, personal loans, etc. That money has "momentum" within the economy and value because of the people who are controlling it who have a vested self interest in using it as wisely as possible to keep their companies running. When you take away chunks from these people, you aren't siphoning it out of the swimming pools of the rich. You're destroying the momentum of that money and the value it provides to people working in corporations, in factories, on roads, in restaurants, on and on. Taking away money from the rich to help the economic welfare of society is like taking your best football players off the field and sitting them on the bench for the benefit of your football team.
- muzz 14y ago
  > Taking away money from the rich to help the economic welfare of society is like taking your best football players off the field and sitting them on the bench for the benefit of your football team. By that logic, tax brackets should be regressive so that the "best" players pay 0% or, better yet, negative. I don't comprehend your "intuition" on granparent's post about cash. You imply all of it is being invested, which is absolutely not true.

by gxs 14y ago

twoodfin 14y ago

The short answer is "What was wrong with Bill Clinton's tax rates in the '90s?" But don't worry. As others have pointed out, it's extremely unlikely that all of GWB's tax cuts will be rolled back.

muzz 14y ago
It's a misnomer to call them the "Bush tax cuts". The marginal tax rate cuts were signed by Obama in 2010 and the "cliff" includes things like the Payroll Tax Holiday-- the largest of tax cuts [1]-- which only came about in 2010. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-deutsche-bank-fiscal-cliff-chart-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-deutsche-ban...

gyardley 14y ago

Not to get too political on HN, but the top 10% of earners in the United States already pay ~45% of the taxes, which is a greater share of the burden than anywhere else in the industrialized world. In Germany, for example, the top 10% of earners pay 31% of taxes. In France, they pay 28%, and in Switzerland, only 21%. If the United States wants to have a European level of both social services and spending (a legitimate choice, although not one I'd make), the wealthy can't possibly carry the tax burden alone - it needs to be spread around more equitably, over all tax brackets.

kip_ 14y ago
The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income, don't you think that person should be paying more than a 1/(population of the United States) share of the taxes?
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  > The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. Wat. Top 10% — $87,334 http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/
- crusso 14y ago
  If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income I don't understand this argument. The infrastructure benefits everyone. The opportunity to succeed from that infrastructure is available to everyone. The road that leads to the grocery store benefits the grocer and the countless consumers who use it. Who gets the better side of the bargain and how do you determine the magnitude of that inequality? If anything, public infrastructure tends to help the little guy. Historically, when public services weren't provided, the rich paid for their own needed infrastructure, protective services, etc. Those services were geared exclusively to help the wealthy land owners. If you got protection from the watch patrolling the nearby keep, you were lucky because they weren't really there for you.
rayiner 14y ago
This is a mindlessly stupid comparison, because in those countries the top 10% of earners also make a much smaller share of the income. If you look at total taxes, instead of just federal income taxes like the Heritage Foundation likes to do (intellectually bankrupt think tank whores that they are), you'll see that the total US tax burden is pretty flat from median up to the top 1%: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america....

crusso 14y ago

sitting on billions of dollars I don't comprehend your information or intuition on where money is in the economy and how it works. No one with billions is sitting on a big mattress of it. The money is in the economy working in a fairly efficient fashion. That money is capital for business enterprises, personal loans, etc. That money has "momentum" within the economy and value because of the people who are controlling it who have a vested self interest in using it as wisely as possible to keep their companies running. When you take away chunks from these people, you aren't siphoning it out of the swimming pools of the rich. You're destroying the momentum of that money and the value it provides to people working in corporations, in factories, on roads, in restaurants, on and on. Taking away money from the rich to help the economic welfare of society is like taking your best football players off the field and sitting them on the bench for the benefit of your football team.

muzz 14y ago
> Taking away money from the rich to help the economic welfare of society is like taking your best football players off the field and sitting them on the bench for the benefit of your football team. By that logic, tax brackets should be regressive so that the "best" players pay 0% or, better yet, negative. I don't comprehend your "intuition" on granparent's post about cash. You imply all of it is being invested, which is absolutely not true.