Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodandsteel | Hacker News Reader

The important question is what impact do tax rates have on the economy and the society as a whole. The conservative argument is that allowing the rich to keep most or all of their money will allow them to invest and grow the economy and make everyone's living standard rise.

However, that hasn't worked for decades in the US and a great many other countries.

View on HN

Allowing people to keep their own money does raise the standard of living for all parties involved, but that’s a marginal benefit and not the core ‘argument’ why the wealthy should be allowed to keep what they make.

Why should the government, or the masses, or society be allowed to take people’s money at all in the first place?

Because you didnt earn it in a vacuum. You used the roads, the educated populace, the borders, the civil society that is largely free of crime, etc. to "make" the money you made. Because of that we say you owe some of it back.

If it helps you could think of taxes as society user-fees. Your Society as a Service bill.

I love it when people use examples like education, road, the legal system to justify taxes. Most of the tax burden is entitlement payments. Educations, road, the legal system is a small fraction of the total tax burden.

And military.

Adam smith mentions that war should be a direct tax on people's incomes, as opposed to long term bonds. It would thus make people very much against any kind of war, realizing how expensive they are.

I realize that a large portion of every US tax dollar goes it the military - that's why I mentioned the borders - without some military spending it's doubtful the borders of the US would be the same as they are today. I think we should all agree that too much money is spent on the military, but that's not an argument about "should we pay tax" - that's an argument about how we should spend taxes.

"entitlement payments" is what, a euphemism for social security et al? There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of the social safety net plays into everyone's ability to make money and take risks.

But you've already ceded the point that taxes make sense - we're just arguing about how much and how to spend them.

Because that money/income/wealth was generated from the sum total effort and infrastructure of society as a whole.

Consider the utility derived from a roadway for two different people. For the average American, they're a way to get conveniently across from point a to point b. For the wealthy their factories are able to ship goods and services to markets all over the country. Their employees are able to drive to the factory. The factory itself was built because there was road access for construction vehicles to reach the site and transport raw materials there.

The SEC is a great example. We all benefit from having a market for securities that is stabilized by regulation and oversight. For someone with no securities their utility derived ends there. For the wealthy, they derive the maximal utility from that same situation since they have wealth to protect from unscrupulous actors.

Is there any case you can make that the wealthy don't derive more utility from society and so should face a greater burden in maintaining it via taxes?

Because otherwise, there would be no society, which means no police to prevent the masses from brutally slaying the rich, which is what used to happen when things got this far out of hand.

Because it's not their money. They can't make money where a functioning society does not exist. This is a very old news.

You'd be grunting and chortling without a society. Even in remote places, they have a language and a bit of knowledge to pass along if you're halfway decent to the group.

No, it really is their money. Property ownership is a core tenet of any civilized society, and you'd be "grunting and chortling" without it.

Try telling that to someone whose had their assets frozen. Ill gotten gains are frozen all the time in a civilized society, that includes not paying for upkeep (taxes), lest we descend into savagery.

If you've done something illegal you can be assessed all sorts of penalties. But if you've come by your money legally, it's your money. It's not society's money. And it doesn't belong to your fellow citizens because, well, they want it.

Well it does belong to them, because it's only through them that money has meaning. Society may decide they don't owe you anything, if you don't feel you owe them anything.

Well, I suppose you could have a society peopled by thieves.

Because it's not their money.

That's pretty counter to how America operates. The gov't operates at the behest of the citizens of the US. Any income you make is yours, thus the gov't has an obligations to spend it in a responsible manner. I think that's why so many Americans complain about taxes. If it was spent wisely and people felt they got good value for their tax dollars I'm sure the complaining wouldn't be as loud.

> The gov't operates at the behest of the citizens of the US.

Then why are lobbyist surrounding the capital with wads of cash? If wealthy interests didn't get a return on investment, they wouldn't keep investing. And since they are coming back and they do get a return on investment, then the government isn't serving the citizens but rather the patrons.

For this reason, the citizens won't get a great return on their tax dollars. The problem seems to be getting worse rather than better.

That's how America operates. We can still turn it around though, I hope.

The veiled argument is that government is very inefficient, more than investments and donations. It is often thought that the 1% would redistribute to the rest, but the government takes quite a commission on that money.

Of course the same people make the argument that humans are naturally greedy and selfish and that's a good thing, so I'm not sure how they reconcile these two opposing concepts.

I don't see the dichotomy you are talking about. Can you elaborate?

Invest in what though? The stock market? Who does buying an S&P 500 ETF benefit other than other people who own an S&P 500 ETF?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com