Taxes on capital gains are also way too low. Let's close some loopholes, as well.
Basically, we should tax wealth, not income.
Second, it feels unfair - taxes are the price we pay for prospering in, and benefiting from a just society with strong property rights. So if you're not profiting (either investment/business returns or earned income), why should you pay tax?
Third, for something that has a fairly cut-and-dry definition, income is already fudged and mis-reported on so many tax returns. Property valuation is way more subjective; think about things like art, patents, copyrights, real estate without comparable sales, software, trade secrets, brands and trademarks. Correctly and fairly taxing it seems nightmarish, might require far more bureaucracy. It would certainly be more intrusive - the government would need to know every single item of value that you own.
Of course, I'm no expert and maybe there are places that have successfully implemented a property-only tax system that includes non-real property.
Most people say: "But wait! A consumption tax is regressive!". No, you are thinking of something like a sales tax collected at point of sale. A consumption tax can be progressive, and I do advocate for a progressive consumption tax. It is no harder to administer than the current US income tax. All the entities currently required to report to the IRS are sufficient to implement a consumption tax formula, and mostly even with the same data, although probably with a few tweaks. Income - net savings == consumption. Apply table. Done. Rich people will still buy yachts and pay their share of tax. You could even implement UBI and/or welfare as a "negative consumption tax", and eliminate huge swaths of bureaucracy.
I wouldn’t say tax property per se, but rather just tax the land itself. Land is the fixed resource, but you can always develop more buildings on it. This would encourage people to use the land to it’s full extent.
Part 16 of the Mirrlees comprehensive review of taxation [0] in the UK goes into more detail.
The great thing about is you can start doing it today - you don't have to wait for a gridlocked, highly polarized federal legislative body to come to some pork-filled "compromise".
The problem with effective altruism is that it requires people to invest in things that sometimes would go against their own personal interests. For example I have no reason to invest my money in improving the public transit of towns I can never see myself living in, instead I would invest that money in places that I or my family lives in.
The flaw of course is that it leads to companies heavily investing only in regions where they're located which are usually heavily gentrified and upper-class neighborhoods.
I'm not making an argument against taxation here. Ostensibly, the reason we have taxes is that many people would not chip in if they weren't forced (free rider problem). It's hard to imagine that anyone would sign up for a SaaS-style military service.
The OP, by their own admission, is not a free rider - they're ready to help! And there are many immediate ways to help in a way that is, empirically, more efficient than taxes that would fund public institutions in the United States. The other great thing about that approach, aside from speed and efficiency, is that there's no long, drawn-out gridlock associated with getting your money into the system. Year-long political fights that result in maybe a .5% increase in a band of income tax is...let's call it a process.
To wrap up/sum up, people that want to give can make better spending decisions than the government generally has shown. This is not a replacement for taxation since most people do not seem to want to give to charities.
Because for example let's say I wanted to put my money towards having proper healthcare for everyone. What action would be more effective: wanting people in my wealth bracket to be taxed more, or donating my income to charity?
Donating your income to charity, for the sole reason that "wanting people in your wealth bracket to pay more taxes" isn't an action, it's the desired outcome. Voting would be an action. Activism would be an action. The simple desire is not an action. It's one thing to say, "I want to be taxed more", knowing that your declaration is not likely to have any impact on the reality of the situation. Saying, "I'm writing a 10,000 dollar check to a malaria or deworming charity" (of which there are many: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities) is an action.
> Okay, since you're said the magic word 'empirically' I would like you to cite your studies and evidence that proves your position.
I think you understand that paying 10 dollars for a person's meal is more efficient than having 6,000 administrators facilitate the transfer of that 10 dollars to a person. Every person you add to the process wants their cut, which is why any organization (private, public, government, corporate) becomes less efficient. They can make up for that efficiency in scale, but scale comes at a price. And, again, I haven't advocated for the elimination of taxes, I'm just giving the OP an actionable option that will do more than his desire to be taxed at a higher rate.
There are not a lot of great studies I could find that compare the efficacy of "tax + welfare" vs "charity", other than libertarian-ish journals that you probably won't view as valid.
Anyway, I'd gladly admit that money isn't the only thing. But it's an important thing. If people in your government aren't using that money wisely (and you live in a democracy): Vote for people who will.
And realize that there's no utopian solution: There's stuff that's better and stuff that's worse. Any system will have major flaws. Crooked timber of humanity, and all that.
It really, truly is not that simple:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
The balance of money in politics has taken representation well away from the needs and basic interests of ordinary people. (Among other things.)
There needs to be people and policy to vote for. Tepid turnout is rooted in the lack of both and that is rooted in the money imbalance.
Much of our current body politic is vote against. Secondly, it is often about implied mutual, public good too. What did I just say?
One example is the lesser evil type conversation. Related is the "not those people" conversation. In simple terms, we point to bad, and the idea is get rid of bad, which implies good or better will be the outcome.
The reality is there will simply not be a robust, mutual, public good, unless we are explicit about it. That means positive policy advocacy, a current, national example being Medicare For All. Many other examples are easy to find, once a person begins seeking positive politics.
That is vote for as opposed to vote against.
Finally, we have a lot of fear, blame and shame in our body politic. These things do motivate people, but not all people, and not in the same ways.
Because vote against bad does not necessarily mean we are left with good, or a net progress type gain, many people see this as futile and prefer to put their time anywhere but politics.
What complicates all this is judgement. Voted "wrong", did not vote, and so forth. The reality is we did what we did and we had reasons. Fair enough.
The progress does not come from thrashing about those things. Understanding others and why they made the choices they have made is never a bad thing however. There is a lot more to all of that than many of us will admit. Worth it.
It, this better we crave, need, comes from the votes we will cast together. The votes to come and the reasons for them. I have come to learn I do not want or need to judge others on their politics. I have also learned we all benefit when we demonstrate mutual respect and understanding.
Does not matter why, nor what any of us may think about all of that. It just is lower turnout and often a set of dubious, unexciting choices where we do not have more explicit policy visions to vote for, get behind.
Our remedy is a sustained, positive civic effort. People getting involved and doing so FOR things, basic, important things. Some will run for office, others will organize, others do advocacy, write code, produce media, etc...
A majority of people in the US are really struggling. I won't speak to answers here, just the "why didn't you vote?" part of this discussion.
Lack of vote FOR is why. Being jaded is why. Not being spoken to, or about, relevance is why.
Where we address those things, make basics explicit, people are motivated differently, and that GOTV looks very different from the usual fear, blame and shame dominated GOTV.
Think of this as an add, not a replace.
We can attract voters, ask for votes, explain why.
Notice how infrequently that ask actually happens? I do.
We cannot tell people what to do, and compelling them with fear, blame and shame has it's limits.
More is needed.
I do a lot of election related work. I have noticed people under 35 'ish are responding differently. There is a generational changing of the guard in progress.
New politics, positive, explicit politics are part of this shift.
Make no mistake. Money is a big deal. However, people to people politics is also a thing and it packs a big punch.
Put vote FOR politics out there, speak right to people, and they will turn out and with that, impact the body politic in positive ways. Support those people who put vote FOR politics out there. Few of us can, will run. That is OK. We all can play a role.
A better state of policy will be the most likely outcome.
All that is where my personal time and money goes. Honestly, a good metric seems to be about 5 to 10 percent of our personal time.
That is what I have been doing for a while now. More people are.
I feel better about politics, despite the horror show we have going on right now. I can laugh, as well as lament the pain.
But, I also have positives in play and a growing peer group doing similar things. This helps a lot, and it helps because I understand a lot more about the process and the more immediate impact local politics can have.
National politics is hard. Local is easier, and one can see good happen fairly quickly. It all adds up, in my view.
Voting is vital, but so is being involved. Activism, lending skills and time, simple volunteering all matter a lot more than I see many well meaning, but frustrated, people appear to realize.
One last thing. Nothing I put here is partisan. Examples given may be, but that is not my intent. Better politics happen within a more robust, vibrant body politic, and that is my intent.
Consider placing more trust in that, get involved, share with your friends. All that is where the good stuff is, money or no money. I did, and it helps. Maybe it will for you and yours too.
People break down into a few types, conditions. To a majority of Americans, there are three big issues most of them will express interest in:
Health Care Living Wages Debt, college and or personal.
Vote for is all about positive conversations surrounding those. What CAN we do, and how much sense does it make? it's also about not blaming or shaming or using fear.
Truth is, they feel fear already. They might not make it, or they might lose their house if they get sick. Slapping on something ugly like, "those people are going to make your life worse, unless you vote for X" turns people off big time. That is probably the single largest reason for anti-politics, not voting, the topic being taboo.
Judging people sucks. Scaring the shit out of them sucks, unless the scientists do it. That's OK. People get that.
Shaming them sucks too.
They feel shame because they either work hard, or can't find good work, or something basic, and they struggle. They need help. They don't want to need those things, but they do not know what to do either.
And blaming them? That's a core tenet of positive politics. Senator Sanders does a great job of this. He's worth watching, whether we agree on his policy prescriptions or not. That style of politicking is powerful.
The rest is in my comment.
Now, how to get going on this stuff?
Start local. In your town, there will be common issues. They will work like health care, living wages and debt do nationally. Examples:
Flu Shots Getting rid of some traffic. (huge in a lot of places) Parks Crime Preserve the landmark. Land use planning.
By talking to people, you can get a sense of what the local heartbeat is.
Then you contribute and encourage others to do the same. I once was part of a group that got a park made on an old abandoned site. It started with a couple of us realizing there wasn't one to serve the large number of kids in our region. Chatting with other parents didn't take long for consensus and momentum to pick up.
The city had a program for activities like this, and we got into it and got the work done. There is a little park somewhere with my name on it, right along with the core people, and we built the play things, did a lot of the basic work to contribute.
Common public good helps everyone, and it inverts the story. Often, we are being told we need to be concerned about matters that do not impact everyone equally. Couple that with fear, blame and shame, and it's all sort of ugly.
Rather than get sucked into that, it's much better to be about specific mutual good things and work to get them done.
Many issues are not even partisan. The park wasn't, and I found myself in a group with a diverse set of people. A couple of us were told we had to be mortal enemies. We laughed and had beers instead.
Hope this helps.
Specific ideas:
Run for a position in your party. These do not cost you, and you get to go to the party meetings and meet lots of people. It's networking for politics.
Seek out action groups. The better ones are positive, and are looking to get a specific thing done. Same story, networking for politics.
Identify positive candidates, and phone bank, text bank, donate, and all of that. Those people are winning races, and it's over 1/3 now easy. Each one helps dilute the mess we've got going on right now, and replace it with explicit, positive politics.
Have fun. That's no fucking joke. I laugh with my political friends and fellow advocates / activists all the damn time. I won't participate where that is not true.
Back a bit later.
Let me explain:
When I am doing this advocacy, I prefer it not be linked to specific parties. Same for general politics, but I do make an exception on M4A. It is too compelling of an example right now.
And this advocacy is foundation stuff. Improve democracy, empower peeps, that kind of thing. I believe in it passionately.
Greets and peace! :D
Most people, with deductions and stuff, will pay around 1/3 taxes on their salary. Going up if you earn more.
>Dissapointingly it doesn’t convert to exceptional public services or social mobility.
I disagree with that. Some European countries _do_ have excellent services.
If you look at the US, it’s more of a developing Brazil like situation. We’re developing a growing peasant/underclass, growing the wealthy as assets concentrate and squeezing the professional and semi-professional classes.
Edit: I want to clarify that I don't see the same thing in California, where market restrictions have made the average joe poorer.
The top 10% are doing fairly well, the top 1% doing better and the top 0.1% are making out like bandits.
I don't have a good solution, but the current state of affairs is unsustainable.
Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have a large salary, and take home as much of it as I can after taxes. But I would also rather have it be a permanent, stable arrangement (maybe not at any particular company, but in general). Angry torches-and-pitchforks-wielding mobs tend to disrupt that, so I consider it to be in my long-term financial interest to contribute to building a society where people are generally happy and don't feel like they need to get violent to fix their problems. Just looking at the news headlines daily, I wouldn't say that what we have in US right now is such a society.
Maybe the measurement should be ability to move up and down the economic strata.
If you've found a sound argument, please at least provide a link to it.
When you get older, you'll be left with whatever meager amount you've earned. If I were you I'd start saving, rather than reveling in your seemingly high salary.
Second, you’re exactly right in that people’s fortunes can turn. Which is why we should all support things like universal healthcare and higher minimum wages. No one should feel like if things go badly for them they could literally no longer afford to live.
Giving the government more money is not the answer.
Please tax me and people like me (or wealthier) more.
But in any case you will note that both your Federal and State tax forms permit a voluntary donation beyond what you owe ..do you take advantage of this?
I and many people are happy to contribute more, but only if others also contribute more. Especially if people better off than me (like my landlord) aren't paying their fair share, that strongly indicates to me that I should not pay my fair share either.
You're a complainer. Start a movement. Be the change you want to see. I'm sure there's still a pithy Twitter hashtag to be had out there for you and others that agree with you but are afraid to take the first step.
If I donate money to the government expecting it to improve things, I can't expect other people to be donating the same amount because it's impossible for me to know. If we consider people to be rational actors (as free markets often do), the free market would effectively dictate that no one would donate money to the government because that would be against their own self-interests.
Additionally it ignores the fact that I as an individual have far less influence than say, Elon Musk or Bezos with the amounts of contributions they make.
It is perfectly rational not to want to pay for other people, if they don't also pay for themselves.
It is obvious that some societal services need income from everyone, so I am perfectly happy to pay tax - as long as everyone else pays their fair share.
OTOH you seem to be blinded by some ideology that pretends that the rest of the world doesn't exist, and that only your own actions matter.
Government isn't perfect. But neither is private industry. We need both. And both need money to function well.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243...
Mid Peninsula Open Space is swimming in money, they buy land faster than they can open it. Bay Area voters just recently approved major funding boosts for Mid Peninsula...why would they do so again so soon?
Seems like HN readers would do well to survey what has passed in the last ten years...
On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position.
> On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
The people inclined to act in this communal/moral way are often not suited to make significant amounts of money to give away. You need to take the money from the rich people and give it to the poor people.
> Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position.
no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, and growth that could've happened, didn't.
all future humans are then harmed.
Who is to say this isn’t happening already? I don’t see many signs it’s well allocated today. Look at healthcare costs in America. Look at our defense spending for little tangible return. Look at the homeless on the streets. Look at where VC investments are going (ads, lifestyle spending, and automation—little to no benefit to society as the productivity returns go to the capitalists). Look at the debt necessary to get what is commonly considered a base for any career, ie a degree. Symptomatically, cash is already misallocated for a society that bolsters values I hold dear.
> growth that could’ve happened, didn’t
Ahh yes, the “market before everything” philosophy. I don’t buy into it. If growth were meaningfully good we’d see wage increase adjusted for inflation in the lower class. We haven’t seen this for decades.
If I was wealthy enough to self-fund quality healthcare for all Americans, I would. I can't. But I am pleased when hyper-wealthy people give back significant contributions to the common good.
Oh, right... that's hard work compared to just taking money away from people.
Heck I'm not even opposed to paying more in taxes, but I refuse to do so when the US already has the highest costs across the board for several sectors including education, health care and transportation. Get the house in order and then we can talk about more taxes. We can start by getting rid of public-sector unions which are a racket and then we can also loosen regulations to encourage faster development.
When you purge your public sector folks of their rights, who is going to keep the mob away from you?
It’s one of those things that engineers advocating for some modern Dickens nightmare forget about.
Unfortunately most evidence indicates that lowering costs and increasing efficacy also means increasing government involvement, so that’s effectively a no-go. So. We’re a bit stuck.
Citation needed. Even supposedly inefficient government spending helps the economy more than having the top 1% hoard resources. Consider Apple's huge cash on hand as an example of the latter. What economic benefit is society deriving from allowing Apple to dodge taxes and keeping that money out of the hands of government?
Now consider that some government programs are wildly efficient[1] while funding basic research that private VCs won't touch. And finally that government employees are often paid orders of magnitude less than their private-sector counterparts for doing largely the same work.
Is there inefficiency in government? Yes. But probably no more than in a similarly sized private company.
[1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate...