Comment by izendejas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by izendejas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Of all those that agree with such argument, I'd like to get an answer to these questions:

1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't, you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a well-nourished and healthy work-force that is more intelligent, stronger and efficient? 2c) what price tag do you pay to ensure that everyone has access to a world-class education (again, compare to a third-world country, I know ours sucks compared to others') that is again, more knowledgeable, more creative, etc and will one day help you boost margins, compete globally, etc?

And I could go on...

You see.. safety goes hand in hand with: 1) economic stability 2) health (ever wonder why some people risk their own lives to cross borders? their families are starving/dying!) 3) education 4) and much more than just a strong military, uncorrupt/just police/court system

And those things cost money. If you'd rather grow wealthy in another country, I dare you to try! And if you're already wealthy and you think taxing you more is unfair, I dare you to move to countries like Mexico where many business owners now have to pay "taxes" to drug gangs or else, they just don't go to prison, they get killed!

I'm not arguing that our tax system doesn't need reform or that current rates are fair, I'm arguing that if you want to be wealthy one day or are already, it's in your best interest to contribute more. Consider it an investment where you can. Yes, surely there is waste, but focus on that, don't whine about the fact that you're getting punished because YOU ARE NOT... you were rewarded with all these great opportunities and public goods and services you seem to take for granted, that's all (again, see my first question above).

You're arguing that education, infrastructure, and a non-corrupt court system is responsible for this country's success, which may well be true. However, only a tiny amount of spending is on those things. 85% of spending is on social security, the military, and medicaid. We could cut all of those things dramatically without a corresponding decrease in the country's economic output.

Really? I think the ecosystem created around large government contracts is pretty significant, and that it would cease to exist without government spending, which naturally would decrease economic output in that a lot of people would be unemployed, a lot of businesses whose customers are the employees of these businesses would shut down, etc etc. It is most obvious in the case of military spending related to manufacturing, but just think about it for medicaid as well.

I think you're off your rocker with this one.

No, I'm including the whole package including health care (see 2b) and military spending which I know just about everyone agrees we need to have some of (see 4), and so on.

Preventing old people and sick people from dying in the streets is just one of those costs you're going to have to pay for, like it or not. Raise Social Security to 68, maybe. Cut it off, though, and you'll find that the country will still pay, one way or another. (Maybe force kids to support their parents - it could be a completely different solution from Social Security, but that money is going to get spent.)

I'm glad you bring up that idea out at the end (by now, few will read it, but that's okay). It pains me to learn that some people in this great country (for cultural reasons?) don't do this. It's a "crazy" idea, but one that works very well in other countries. Latin Americans, Indians, and others will attest to that. I wouldn't call for forcing families to take care of their elderly, but I'd find ways to motivate that because it's simply sad that we have to take care of others' parents.

And yes, the whole problem with our health care system isn't so much that we're paying (we have to no matter what, either by premium increases or footing the bill for emergency patients). The problem is that it sucks at preventing major health problems that later cost more if undetected and not treated early.

The problem with that system is that it incentivizes overpopulation. If your retirement plan is your children, you have a lot of children.

Perhaps. But grandchildren, brothers, sisters, etc can all help, not just children.

2d) a workforce that is relatively well off enough that there's little incentive for them to steal your assets or time.

Edit: 2e) comfortable enough not to wage revolution against your ass.

> " I'm arguing that if you want to be wealthy one day or are already, it's in your best interest to contribute more."

The rich already contribute more. Where's the line? 90% tax rate? 99.9999%?

I should be clear: more than people who are in the middle/lower classes in terms of the effective tax rate (not just marginal), and given our current situation, it may have to be even more than it is today (along with cuts) or the alternative is that the system could collapse.

Maybe the 'system' collapsing is a good thing. It's a modern invention.

Where's the line?

That my friend is the central question of domestic politics. Right now 'the line' is at historically low levels, and we're facing massive budget deficits. And fresh from a US election year where everyone agreed the deficit is the most important issue facing us, the first thing the government did was vote to extend those historically low rates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com