Hacker News Reader

>> How do you explain this?

How do I explain the top 10% paying over 70% of total federal taxes?

I would wager a guess it has something to do with them having about 70% of the total wealth of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

This. The OP's particular numbers are -obviously- meaningless without including further context.

If one person had all the money, literally, all the money, and paid any amount on it, be it one cent, or half of the money (either way leaving them with trillions, and everyone else still able to earn nothing), they'd be paying 100% of the taxes. This is an absurd hypothetical, but it demonstrates that the percentage of taxes paid by a particular group tells you nothing by itself.

You're assuming a large overlap between top 10% income and top 10% wealth. I'm not able to find great data on this, with most sources just focusing on one or the other. It seems to me though that many of the wealthiest individuals, including those drawing down retirement savings, probably have low W2 income.

This discrepancy, and people's unwillingness to intellectually engage with it, is what allows the extremely wealthy to be just fine with society demonizing high income people. Once you have stored wealth, you don't care any more because there is no wealth tax (other than property tax and inflation). Taxing high income people into oblivion is what allows the very rich to keep their club small.

Actually no, it's due to the high levels of progressivity of US income taxes relative to other nations.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...

What generalisation? The comment is they gain the most, and that they have the ability to exploit it. That's a statement of fact. You could similarly say that men are the most likely to benefit from sexism, and are positioned best ot exploit it due to the historical sexism against women. It's not saying all men are sexist, just that they are the ones likely to benefit.

The article directly talks about your 70% figure, and explains why it's misleading. I also don't get why we should care about the 'fairness' of it. We don't allow people to do anything they want for the benefit of society - that can include not allowing people to hoard money if we want.

As to your latter points, just because they pay a lot doesn't mean they pay enough, and employing people isn't a 'gift' to society - it's something they do to gain benefit themselves. Yes, it's a behaviour we should encourage, but it isn't somehow equivalent to paying tax.

> just because they pay a lot doesn't mean they pay enough

So how do we fairly determine what is 'enough'?

More.

From "them."

Enough that the country isn't constantly running massive deficits, and can afford to invest properly in infrastructure and other needed areas. Which we're clearly not doing right now.

So cut costs and your problem is solved.

That is not compatible with our necessary infrastructure investments, etc.

This presupposes our existing expenses are all necessary.

Through discussions. Debates. Elections. Hooray democracy!

We've been discussing, debating, and voting about taxes and wealth distribution for hundreds of years. If the solution were so simple, wouldn't you expect the problem to be solved by now?

Well, no. This is a problem that will never be solved, because it's not a problem with a single "correct" solution.

Each new generation has to hash it out for ourselves, the kind of society we want to build. The work is never done.

So the OP says what society decides isn't fair, and you say that fairness is decided by society. It seems like there should be a less paradoxical way to reason about this.

Through debate, discussion, weighing up the pros and cons, and testing. We have tested our current set-up, and clearly it doesn't work for a large portion of society - now we alter it.

> Since when is generalizing an entire group acceptable?

What other kind of generalizing is there?

Customer's pay the wages and costs of business - plurocrats reap the profits.

Socially beneficial plutocrats invest in economies, risking their capital to seek reward. Money hoarded is of no value, an economy is powered by the movement of capital.

Corruption of economies by money to escape ones tax burden is antisocial and ultimately short sighted.

The wealth of nations is a functional, fair economy.

Good goverance should keep markets fair & ensure universal access to Justice.

Weak, corruptible governments are anti capitalist, distorting markets by granting monopolies, tax-fixing & denying judicial remedies to the powerless & poor.

The "they employ many people" is a purple cod.

You know what a huge percentage of the population does? Participates in the economy, helping other people earn economic rewards, economic rewards that are taxed. That it is advantageous for some people to employ others is not any different in that respect than the fact that people buy goods and services.

I think you'll find the terms of employment may be relevant too.

A lot of employment in the UK has moved from being a job to being a zero-hours "we only pay you if we want you for a day, but you have to be available for us to choose you every day" contract.

Most people would prefer a steady job, but when the playing field is so heavily slanted politically, that kind of job is becoming a middle class luxury.

Do you not see the discrepancy between a statement about the top 0.1% and your claims about the top 10%?

Just remember that this is an election year so articles blaming scapegoats come from both sides.

Conservatives blaming immigrants and Liberals blaming the rich.

You are exactly right.

The difference is, immigrants didn't cause any economic depressions.

Wait, is this the same forum that complains about HB1 abuse?

And who disproportionately benefits from that arrangement? Who makes it happen? It's not the immigrants.

I often find myself an outlier in this forum.

> Since when is generalizing an entire group acceptable?

Do you know what time it is?