Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway999a | Hacker News Reader

It's very strange how people now seem to feel like they are entitled to see the tax returns of public or well-known figures. Tax returns are nobody else's business! Would you demand to see their medical records as well?

The implicit subtext (especially with highly successful people like Musk) is that we do this to "make sure they pay their fair share". Here's the reality: the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes[1]. The bottom 80% of filers (by income) pay only 15% of all taxes. This myth that the rich don't pay taxes is completely, utterly false. It is a myth promulgated for political purposes.

1. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-fede...

View on HN

>public or well-known figures

you're equating two unrelated issues. Nobody needs or is entitled to a private company's CEO's tax returns. However, it is totally reasonable to see the tax returns of a politician who makes decisions on a daily basis that could very easily be tailored to line his pockets. It is not about tax returns, it is about transparency and accountability. Even in the CEO's case, if the board of his company wants to see his returns, I would not really fault them. It is pretty basic requirement that you have to be accountable to the people you work for. In case of the Trump (I am assuming he is the reason for your comment), he seems to be confused about the roles. People are not his employees or customers. They are his bosses. The former don't need to see his finances, the latter do.

I think people care that the rich pay a smaller proportionate rate[1] than the poor. People who make under $19k a year pay twice the rate of those making $470k+

Comparing total of taxes paid and leaving it at that is generally a tactic to distract from the proportion problem.

1.http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php

45% of Americans pay 0 federal income tax. That is a very small rate

Federal income tax isn't the only tax out there...

That doesn't change the fact that people making $19k a year are paying more taxes proportionately than someone making $400k a year, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Are you suggesting someone makes less money so they pay less taxes? or are you just trying to change the subject?

> the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes

The top 1% also own more than 50% [1], so if they would pay their "fair share" they'd still need to pay more. Much more if you think that the differences should become smaller.

[1] http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/1-percent-global-wealth-credit...

Apples to oranges comparison. One is talking about the US. The other is talking about the world.

I wonder how much of the world's burden those 1% actually are paying? Why do you think they would still need to pay more?

Fair. For the US, the top 1% seems to own 40% of all wealth, a little bit less but still a staggering number i.m.o.

My problem with this is not so much the wealth of the top 1% in itself, but the lack of equal opportunity in the bottom 50%. A child that is born in this demography has much, much lower chance on a successful life than a child that is born in a wealthy family. That simply can't be fair.

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

>That simply can't be fair.

This word "fair" keeps being thrown about in these discussions.

All such discussions are useless unless the people involved specify what they mean by "fair". And I'll give you a hint: You'll find many people will disagree with your definition (and there isn't consensus on any one definition).

A simple example: Fairness in equality vs fairness in proportion. The former is about everyone having equal services/wealth/etc (usually aligned with far left), and the latter is about everyone having these in proportion to their efforts (usually aligned with far right).

Neither is right or wrong.

High wealth inequality, while often correlated with lower opportunities, does not fundamentally imply it - it is not a causation. Using it as a metric is a poor choice. Instead, the metric should be what the lowest N% have access to, regardless of the wealth inequality. You can get low wealth inequality where everything is bad for everyone, or high wealth inequality where only a few "suffer".

Just saying something is "unfair" without explanation is merely an attempt at making an emotional argument. It is identical to just saying something is "wrong".

Fairness means getting what one deserves.

The world is unfair in many ways, and I thought I was quite specific in my example of this by comparing two baby's: one born with top 1% wealthy parents, and another one born in the bottom 50% income parents. The baby's have done nothing in their lives yet and are equally talented, yet one of them will almost certainly have a much better life.

Unless you want to argue that the rich baby somehow deserves more, I think it's better to assume she was just lucky being born rich. And this luck will extend throughout childhood: positive environment, more friends, better care, better schools, etc.

You are right that this still does not make it unfair. This is all luck. But what would be unfair is when the rich kid gets to inherit all of the wealth, and not pay a disproportionate part of that wealth toward taxes that are needed to pay for the poor kids' education and healthcare, to give her at least some chance to grab an opportunity and work herself to a somewhat better life.

>Fairness means getting what one deserves.

Merely begging the question. You might as well say "fairness means doing the right thing."

In your comment, you've use the word fair/unfair, but still not specified a proper criterion.

If you want to say baby's born to the lowest percentile should have the same opportunities as those in the top, that's a concrete statement (measurable, etc). Why do you have to bring the word "fair" into it?

Incidentally (and off the topic of fairness), there are easy ways to solve the problem - but those are ways no one (including, I'm sure, you) would accept. So looking at one criterion in a vacuum with the rest of society is problematic.

Sure as a percentage of total taxes paid, but they generally pay less as a percentage of their income or worth. Which is a better measure is certainly a reasonable discussion, but saying that one is unequivocally politically motivated while the other isnt, is odd.

I'm not sure that I would like to see their medical records but there was a lot of talk about medical records for public figures this past election cycle in the USA. It went so far that Mrs. Clinton offered up her records for review. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/clinton-campaign-rele...

The truth is if you're going to be a public figure like a CEO or Elected Official you better be ready to give up some if not all of your privacy.

ceo of a private corporation === public figure?

CEO of a public corp maybe

It's not "well-known" that is the determining attribute. It's being a CEO of publicly traded company (which have fiduciary obligations to their owners to disclose things that may affect value of their property, i.e. stocks) or being top-level politicians who's influence over everyone's lives justifies some privacy violations.

Apple was criticized for not sharing the health condition of Steve Jobs earlier than they did.

I disagree, but I don't think that people should have down-voted you.

That's fine. I still want them to pay more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com