Hacker News Reader

Agreed on all points. I would like my tax rate to increase. The marginal utility of dollars is drastically lower past a certain point, and could be better used on public works. I think the biggest boost in life quality would be being surrounded by a happier citizenry.

So be more generous with relevant charities while you wait for your taxes to go up. Nothing's stopping people from being more generous.

Except for the fundamental human tendency of greed that is all the more common (for reasons of causation, not failure of character) in those who are above a certain profit margin. No plea for individual charity and philanthropy is ever going to be as effective as taxation in the aggregate.

I have been, but the current administration's tax proposal looks like it would reduce my tax rate, and in order to make a noticable impact on society as a whole is going to require taxation, people probably aren't suddenly going to get a whole lot more charitable than they have been.

Your statement is the equivalent of the oft-stated "every little bit helps". It really doesn't, because it usually serves as a palliative and stops people short of doing the major work that needs to be done.

I want the decimation of public education to be reversed, I want us to figure out ways to help our fellow citizens who are hurting economically and psychologically. Massive unevenness in wealth accumulation is a huge problem. This is going to take a society-wide effort to fix, not a few NGOs.

I find that political solutions tend to stop at the palliative, especially compared to forming friendships and active engagement with relevant charities.

> This is going to take a society-wide effort to fix, not a few NGOs.

The difference between our viewpoints is that I don't see the government as the sole or best face of "society". It's merely one option, and often not the best one.

That's often the case, but it doesn't have to be.

That said, how would you suggest coordinating a large segment of the population to do something if not through government?

I think coordination is often overrated compared to removing perverse incentives and instituting healthy ones.

Coordination leaves very little room for innovation, for instance.

Do we need a coordinated effort to retrain displaced workers? Or do we just need a large and flexible one?

Given than flexibility is one of the issues where employers can't keep up with workers, I suspect a less coordinated but more motivated effort sounds better here.

Guaranteed minimum income compared to a Smorgasbord of targeted programs is also less coordinated but probably better.

Except that for many people it is simply the only option. Disabled Veterans are employed by government at something like 10x the rate of other employers. Minorities are employed at much higher rates as well. Alot of this is because of the way the civil service hiring works, which is perverse in some ways and highly merit based on others.

There are alot of metrics where private enterprise is just plain terrible, and government is the lesser of two evils.

I've worked for several big corps who do exactly the same thing WRT minorities and veterans. The best thing for people isn't to give them a patron but a chance to build a good career. So the next time they apply for a job, they're not a statistic but a competitive candidate.

If private businesses need help here, let's form groups to work toward that.

> I pay so little in tax based on what I earn from capital gains, that I never even think about it.

This is really interesting. Contrast this to how, say, a middle-income self-employed tradesperson feels when they do the following calculation. I'm using the UK tax system because that's what I know, but I expect it's similar elsewhere.

Say a customer pays them £1000 for some work. First VAT is assessed on this, which is ~£167, leaving them with ~£833. Then they pay for materials. Let's pick £400 as an arbitrary figure, which I don't think is unreasonable. This leaves a profit of £433. Then they pay class 4 national insurance contributions on this profit, which has a marginal rate of 9% assuming you make a normal amount of profit, so £39. You also pay income tax on this, which once you're over the 0%-rate threshold comes to ~£87. All told, your £1000 you took from the customer has resulted in £400 going to your supplier, ~£292 going to the tax man, and ~£308 for yourself. That's a marginal tax rate of ~49%, which, to me, feels like a lot.

"For instance, I can go rent some capital equipment and use it to build some ROI. And, afterward I pay the owner for the opportunity. I don't think that is theft, so why would I view tax any differently?"

I don't really hold this viewpoint myself, but renting capital equipment is voluntary but taxation isn't. That is a pretty significant difference.

Could you elaborate more on that? I'm not discounting it, but the viewpoint is unfamiliar to me.

I don't see taxes as involuntary. In fact, it's clearly documented how much tax I'm expected to pay in order to receive the services that I will receive. And, I'm (theoretically) free to immigrate to somewhere else that has a different tax structure. For instance, there are several countries that don't have income tax. So, before I choose to produce income, I could choose to immigrate (ignoring the complexities of that, of course). How is it involuntary? In the US, there are even people who pay zero taxes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the issue many people seem to have with taxation is the monopolistic reign of government. Sure, government is a monopoly. But, at least I know that I have some oversight over it. And, I know that there are people actively monitoring it. That gives me more comfort than if, say, Comcast was running the government.

What would be cool is if I had more choice in service providers. But, to be honest, I'm lazy, and I really don't want to be comparing different service providers for different services. It's much easier for me to pay one provider. Now, if people could figure out how to make it work so that I had different options, that'd be really cool. But, that's theoretical political science type stuff that's beyond me. At the moment, I'm content.

Ok, that's enough online political discourse for me, for the month. lol. But, I'm eager to read the responses, if there are any. There are a lot of people on HN way smarter than me, so I'm sure you guys have some interesting ideas.

In order for taxes to be voluntary, not only do you need to know in advance what the rules for calculating them as well as what you would receive, but you would also need the ability to opt out of paying for and receiving the service. Being able to emigrate is irrelevant because:

1. You would still have a tax burden (at least if you are American)

2. If your only option to avoid something is being expelled from your home, it hardly qualifies as involuntary.

I am also generally content with my tax burden, however I still felt the need to defend people who aren't because at a theoretical level they are correct.