4 ms·

So you pay your taxes so the government can gives you back that exact money you payed? What's the point? I have a better ideia, why don't government cut everyo

So you pay your taxes so the government can gives you back that exact money you payed? What's the point? I have a better ideia, why don't government cut everyones taxes by the same amount?

yread 13y ago
You've registered an account on HACKER news just to comment on a political article in NYTimes?
- mercenario 13y ago
  I'm a old and frequent reader, but usually don't have much to say so I never bothered creating an account. And my english is not very good either. But the political links here are the ones who have always encouraged me to comment.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  What kind of question is that? Do people need a specific reason to register an account on HN now? Sheesh.
lmm 13y ago
The point is a) wealth redistribution, because the marginal value of money is much greater for those who have less of it b) a nationalized safety net against catastrophe, because individuals are bad at planning for disaster, or even entirely predictable futures (witness e.g. the US IRA system) c) the social benefits to everyone (in terms of crime, disease, general wellbeing, being able to have public facilities that don't get destroyed...) of not having a poor underclass (Yes it's paternalistic, but without a certain level of paternalism, lots of citizens die. Handing out money is about the least paternalistic way of stopping that).
- mercenario 13y ago
  If it's about wealth redistribution, why give money to the rich? If it's about anything else, why take the money in the first place just to give it back later?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > If it's about wealth redistribution, why give money to the rich? If everyone gets it, then there's no overhead in qualifying people or trying to prevent fraud, that's why. > I have a better idea, why don't government cut everyone’s taxes by the same amount? That's not a better idea as it doesn't address the problem at all.
    - colomon 13y ago
      Actually, just making sure the people getting the checks are alive will constitute some overhead, no?
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Are you being obtuse on purpose?
  - lmm 13y ago
    Because any sharp cutoff where you stopped getting it would create poor incentives for people earning just below that cutoff. What exactly are you objecting to, and what are you counterproposing? (If you're worried about having to mail two cheques, in practice it might well be applied as a reduction in tax once your taxes would be more than the credit. If you're worried about administration overheads, having every citizen able to claim the same amount exactly once is a lot simpler than means-tested benefits and means there's much less opportunity for fraud).
GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
The point is not everyone can afford to pay taxes, so simply reducing tax wouldn't help them at all
tete 13y ago
It basically does the same thinf as insurances do. It reduces risks for the individual. The benefit of this version is that it has a way smaller overhead than an insurance has. Insurances have a risk for the company/state giving out the insurance. This entity also has to deal with the requests, has to check who really is sick and who just claims to be. They have to be constantly adapated to what is covered and what is not. You have to employ doctors, (re)verifying stuff, you need people giving support, you have to deal with constant complaints of why X is covered and Y is not. It can be abused. Another side effect is that doing your own venture doesn't mean you end up on the street. People finally REALLY have to care for their health and stuff, because for not being sick, being hurt or whatever you can use the money for something else. People can do learn stuff on their own, while being able to live. All that complex balancing governments, etc. have to deal with all the time is gone or at least way less. So baasically it is the realization that all that stuff is complex, makes everyone hate the system and taxes and reduces freedom by implementing and fixing laws, staying up to date, etc. This was tried in a couple of poorer countries (they had nothing to lose). Outcome was lower crime rate, an actual economy, lower unemplyment, etc. It's most likely not the answer to all question and not perfect, but it has many, many benifits. As the article states the problem is the same as with democracy. There was a time when nearly everboy was like "My decision might be good, thought of one, but what about all the others?". And all in all it sounded like a really naive and stupid idea in the beginning. Now we all know that Democracy isn't perfect, but then what really is?

So you pay your taxes so the government can gives you back that exact money you payed? What's the point? I have a better ideia, why don't government cut everyones taxes by the same amount?

yread 13y ago

You've registered an account on HACKER news just to comment on a political article in NYTimes?

mercenario 13y ago
I'm a old and frequent reader, but usually don't have much to say so I never bothered creating an account. And my english is not very good either. But the political links here are the ones who have always encouraged me to comment.
patrickaljord 13y ago
What kind of question is that? Do people need a specific reason to register an account on HN now? Sheesh.

lmm 13y ago

The point is a) wealth redistribution, because the marginal value of money is much greater for those who have less of it b) a nationalized safety net against catastrophe, because individuals are bad at planning for disaster, or even entirely predictable futures (witness e.g. the US IRA system) c) the social benefits to everyone (in terms of crime, disease, general wellbeing, being able to have public facilities that don't get destroyed...) of not having a poor underclass (Yes it's paternalistic, but without a certain level of paternalism, lots of citizens die. Handing out money is about the least paternalistic way of stopping that).

mercenario 13y ago
If it's about wealth redistribution, why give money to the rich? If it's about anything else, why take the money in the first place just to give it back later?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > If it's about wealth redistribution, why give money to the rich? If everyone gets it, then there's no overhead in qualifying people or trying to prevent fraud, that's why. > I have a better idea, why don't government cut everyone’s taxes by the same amount? That's not a better idea as it doesn't address the problem at all.
  - colomon 13y ago
    Actually, just making sure the people getting the checks are alive will constitute some overhead, no?
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Are you being obtuse on purpose?
- lmm 13y ago
  Because any sharp cutoff where you stopped getting it would create poor incentives for people earning just below that cutoff. What exactly are you objecting to, and what are you counterproposing? (If you're worried about having to mail two cheques, in practice it might well be applied as a reduction in tax once your taxes would be more than the credit. If you're worried about administration overheads, having every citizen able to claim the same amount exactly once is a lot simpler than means-tested benefits and means there's much less opportunity for fraud).

GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago

The point is not everyone can afford to pay taxes, so simply reducing tax wouldn't help them at all

tete 13y ago

It basically does the same thinf as insurances do. It reduces risks for the individual. The benefit of this version is that it has a way smaller overhead than an insurance has. Insurances have a risk for the company/state giving out the insurance. This entity also has to deal with the requests, has to check who really is sick and who just claims to be. They have to be constantly adapated to what is covered and what is not. You have to employ doctors, (re)verifying stuff, you need people giving support, you have to deal with constant complaints of why X is covered and Y is not. It can be abused. Another side effect is that doing your own venture doesn't mean you end up on the street. People finally REALLY have to care for their health and stuff, because for not being sick, being hurt or whatever you can use the money for something else. People can do learn stuff on their own, while being able to live. All that complex balancing governments, etc. have to deal with all the time is gone or at least way less. So baasically it is the realization that all that stuff is complex, makes everyone hate the system and taxes and reduces freedom by implementing and fixing laws, staying up to date, etc. This was tried in a couple of poorer countries (they had nothing to lose). Outcome was lower crime rate, an actual economy, lower unemplyment, etc. It's most likely not the answer to all question and not perfect, but it has many, many benifits. As the article states the problem is the same as with democracy. There was a time when nearly everboy was like "My decision might be good, thought of one, but what about all the others?". And all in all it sounded like a really naive and stupid idea in the beginning. Now we all know that Democracy isn't perfect, but then what really is?