Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Relevant:

"Chutzpah, according to the traditional definition, is when you murder your mother and father, then plead for mercy from the court on the grounds that you’re an orphan.Something like that is now happening in the tax debate."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/federal-tax-chut...

Since 1962, and especially since 1982, the USA tax system has relentlessly reduced the taxes that the rich have to pay. The point is, if you change the tax system, so that all the money goes to the rich, then even with the lower taxes, the rich will end up paying a lot of what taxes are collected, because they have all the money. And that is basically what is happened. But now the rich like to claim "Hey, we are paying 70% of all the taxes!" But of course, their share of all wealth has expanded dramatically, so even with lower taxes, they still end up paying quite a bit.

But of course, all of these taxes are voluntary. They could voluntarily give up their wealth, and donate all of it to charity, and then they would be poor, and they would not have to pay taxes. That they choose not to do this suggests that they mind the taxes less than they would mind being poor.

That's not what the word "voluntary" actually means.

What part of voluntarily giving up their wealth defies the definition of "voluntary?"

"all of these taxes are voluntary"

Is the place where the word in contention here. Just like if I point a gun at your hand and tell you that receiving the bullet is "voluntary" because you can always voluntarily cut off your hand.

That being said, I agree with the concept of taxes, but let's not kid ourselves and call them voluntary.

If you make the choice to interact with the US' economy you implicty agree to give the US a cut for its role in the creation and tending of that economy.

As a U.S. citizen, if I make the choice not to interact with the U.S. economy and move somewhere outside the U.S., I still have to give the government their cut. Only way out is to relinquish U.S. citizenship. No other developed country requires this.

So relinquish your citizenship.

Aside from the fact that there's a hefty fee for that, the US government will not let you relinquish citizenship solely for taxation reasons.

You could make up a reason, but that's stretching even your definition of "voluntary" under the law.

In reality, the US rich pay a higher proportion of taxes relative to income earned than any other OECD country.

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

It's true that poorer folks in the US are unproductive and contribute very little to society via market mechanisms (most don't even work). They are in fact a net drain after accounting for taxes and transfers.

I fail to see how the rich continuing to be productive and paying far more than their fair share is "chutzpah".

I'm not the most well versed but it doesn't look like that says anything about "income" that is derived from capital gains. For instance Warren Buffet has remarked that his effective tax rate is actually around 17.4%.

Capital gains is personal income. So yes, it almost certainly does.

Additionally, that figure (much like Warren Buffer) understates what the rich pay - first the corporation they own pays taxes, then they pay taxes again when the profit is distributed to shareholders.

It's a misrepresentation equivalent to claiming that middle class folks don't pay the employer portion of payroll taxes.

>It's true that poorer folks in the US are unproductive and contribute very little to society via market mechanisms (most don't even work)

[citation needed]

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...

See table 3. 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) did not work even a single week during the year. 12% worked full time year round.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com