25 ms·

It's not your money. How are you planning on taking care of your family when you're in jail for a few years on tax evasion? Anyway, come on... you're saying "I

It's not your money. How are you planning on taking care of your family when you're in jail for a few years on tax evasion? Anyway, come on... you're saying "I'm going to skip paying taxes so I don't have to work for a year"..... how does that make any sense at all, and how is that a defensible position? How about you take the $100k you made on your job (then put away $40k) and learn to live on it? I know I sound like a dick, but you're advocating not paying taxes, just because you'd prefer not to. You're obviously a smart guy, posting on hacker news, talking about taxes, you'd have no problem finding a job that keeps your family eating and in a house.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
So let me see if I understand you. You think that if I have money in the bank that is owed for taxes, I should pay the taxes even if it means not having food on the table. That since I'm "obviously a smart guy" that I should find work at some place based on your criteria (one supposes that criteria would be "make enough to pay taxes, you schmuck") instead of having the freedom to negotiate a contract and situation that is more productive to me and society in the long run? So my obligation on taxes is greater than my obligation both to my family (to find the best job possible and to support them during times of non-work) and to myself? (to have the freedom to spend money I have in the bank in a priority that I set, even if it means risking higher debt and fines later on) Nobody is skipping taxes. Nobody is advocating not paying taxes. I've yet to have not pay -- eventually. I'm simply describing how easy it is if you are a non-standard wage earner (like a startup entrepreneur) to get hosed up in tax liabilities. People don't fit into the little boxes that tax policy wonks want them to. That's the point. I grew up with the idea that the people owned the government, not the other way around. It seems that your feeling is that taxes are such an obligation that they should come ahead of personal preferences for work. That folks should take jobs wherever they can find them in order to fulfill their tax obligations. Ok yes, I've rehashed what I think you're saying and it's true: you sound like a dick. Care to rethink any of that? Or did I misunderstand?
- cschneid 18y ago
  Ok. So what you're saying is that you have a profession which has long dry periods in between lucrative jobs. Also, that you don't have the planning skills to have enough in the bank to feed your family if things don't work out, and you have a longer period between jobs. So, you skip out on legal obligations (you know, paying taxes...) in order to make ends meet. I'm saying that instead you take a pragmatic view of things, you pay your taxes, avoid jail time, and further ruin later (fines, interest, etc). Build up more of a cushion of savings, since obviously you can't count on your income. And consider the idea that maybe you should get temporary jobs to NOT STARVE if it comes to that. Basically, our disagreement here is that you think that the money is yours the whole time, and that taxes are a separate bill, which you then don't plan ahead for. I propose that the money you set aside for taxes is no longer yours, it's in your keeping, but you are legally obligated to pay it (probably quarterly) to the government, in order to pay for all the societal benefits taxes provide (whole other argument). I get annoyed that you make a ton of money (on the order of $100k), have the foresight to put aside the money for taxes, and then ... "whoops, I spent it all", and complain that you don't have enough to pay your taxes. You have a family sure, and a hard to predict job, but come on, you make way more than enough to feed them, and clothe them, and even pay for piano lessons. All while paying taxes.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Basically, our disagreement here is that you think that the money is yours the whole time, and that taxes are a separate bill Yes. As a free and individual sovereign person I feel as if I own the money that I earn and I own the political power that I was born with. I choose to apply both of those assets to the best of my ability. I expect others to do the same. Our government was founded on a tax revolt. Remember "no taxation without representation"? We, the people, are the original holders of money and power. Nobody else. If we reach a state where, god forbid, we are being taxed for more things we do not allocate our political power for, then -- something will happen. People will leave, new leaders will be elected, there will be a balanced budget amendment -- something. And if everybody had to write out those multi-thousand-dollar checks every quarter, there would be a lot more scrutiny than there is today. And the day I let the government decide whether/where I should be working, in absence of a war, is the day that I stop being a voluntary citizen. I find it interesting that your argument basically consists of impeaching your opposition (me). I'd argue that no amount of planning can eliminate the problem I've outlined. If planning could account for all economic conditions, how did the banks get where they are today? How come economists can't predict the economy four years out? I've had gigs that ran week-to-week for over a year and ended suddenly. If you've got some magic pixie dust that lets you plan a year out, I'd love to have some. So yes, continue slamming me for the failure of your model to include reality. I'm a poor planner, I'm selfish, I have a bad attitude. One imagines the list is endless. Perhaps I am not a patriot as well? Who needs logic when simple ad hominem attacks work so well. (And it is ad hominem for instead of acknowledging that I am simply presenting a case for your consideration, you've focused this conversation on your personal opinion of my finances, morality, and planning -- none of which changes the nature of the debate and the only goal of which is to insulate yourself from thinking through this) Even if you are right, if people are naturally poor planners and selfish, etc, you still have to account for the fact that the system doesn't work. But you don't want to go there. You'd rather talk about how bad the people are. Since this is where you've taken us, I think it's a good time to bow out.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

So let me see if I understand you. You think that if I have money in the bank that is owed for taxes, I should pay the taxes even if it means not having food on the table. That since I'm "obviously a smart guy" that I should find work at some place based on your criteria (one supposes that criteria would be "make enough to pay taxes, you schmuck") instead of having the freedom to negotiate a contract and situation that is more productive to me and society in the long run? So my obligation on taxes is greater than my obligation both to my family (to find the best job possible and to support them during times of non-work) and to myself? (to have the freedom to spend money I have in the bank in a priority that I set, even if it means risking higher debt and fines later on) Nobody is skipping taxes. Nobody is advocating not paying taxes. I've yet to have not pay -- eventually. I'm simply describing how easy it is if you are a non-standard wage earner (like a startup entrepreneur) to get hosed up in tax liabilities. People don't fit into the little boxes that tax policy wonks want them to. That's the point. I grew up with the idea that the people owned the government, not the other way around. It seems that your feeling is that taxes are such an obligation that they should come ahead of personal preferences for work. That folks should take jobs wherever they can find them in order to fulfill their tax obligations. Ok yes, I've rehashed what I think you're saying and it's true: you sound like a dick. Care to rethink any of that? Or did I misunderstand?

cschneid 18y ago
Ok. So what you're saying is that you have a profession which has long dry periods in between lucrative jobs. Also, that you don't have the planning skills to have enough in the bank to feed your family if things don't work out, and you have a longer period between jobs. So, you skip out on legal obligations (you know, paying taxes...) in order to make ends meet. I'm saying that instead you take a pragmatic view of things, you pay your taxes, avoid jail time, and further ruin later (fines, interest, etc). Build up more of a cushion of savings, since obviously you can't count on your income. And consider the idea that maybe you should get temporary jobs to NOT STARVE if it comes to that. Basically, our disagreement here is that you think that the money is yours the whole time, and that taxes are a separate bill, which you then don't plan ahead for. I propose that the money you set aside for taxes is no longer yours, it's in your keeping, but you are legally obligated to pay it (probably quarterly) to the government, in order to pay for all the societal benefits taxes provide (whole other argument). I get annoyed that you make a ton of money (on the order of $100k), have the foresight to put aside the money for taxes, and then ... "whoops, I spent it all", and complain that you don't have enough to pay your taxes. You have a family sure, and a hard to predict job, but come on, you make way more than enough to feed them, and clothe them, and even pay for piano lessons. All while paying taxes.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Basically, our disagreement here is that you think that the money is yours the whole time, and that taxes are a separate bill Yes. As a free and individual sovereign person I feel as if I own the money that I earn and I own the political power that I was born with. I choose to apply both of those assets to the best of my ability. I expect others to do the same. Our government was founded on a tax revolt. Remember "no taxation without representation"? We, the people, are the original holders of money and power. Nobody else. If we reach a state where, god forbid, we are being taxed for more things we do not allocate our political power for, then -- something will happen. People will leave, new leaders will be elected, there will be a balanced budget amendment -- something. And if everybody had to write out those multi-thousand-dollar checks every quarter, there would be a lot more scrutiny than there is today. And the day I let the government decide whether/where I should be working, in absence of a war, is the day that I stop being a voluntary citizen. I find it interesting that your argument basically consists of impeaching your opposition (me). I'd argue that no amount of planning can eliminate the problem I've outlined. If planning could account for all economic conditions, how did the banks get where they are today? How come economists can't predict the economy four years out? I've had gigs that ran week-to-week for over a year and ended suddenly. If you've got some magic pixie dust that lets you plan a year out, I'd love to have some. So yes, continue slamming me for the failure of your model to include reality. I'm a poor planner, I'm selfish, I have a bad attitude. One imagines the list is endless. Perhaps I am not a patriot as well? Who needs logic when simple ad hominem attacks work so well. (And it is ad hominem for instead of acknowledging that I am simply presenting a case for your consideration, you've focused this conversation on your personal opinion of my finances, morality, and planning -- none of which changes the nature of the debate and the only goal of which is to insulate yourself from thinking through this) Even if you are right, if people are naturally poor planners and selfish, etc, you still have to account for the fact that the system doesn't work. But you don't want to go there. You'd rather talk about how bad the people are. Since this is where you've taken us, I think it's a good time to bow out.