Hacker News Reader

Comment by js8 | Hacker News Reader

I find comments like this confusing. It seems that you agree with leftists that equality is important value.

But then you say:

> all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation"

Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem? Why cannot you say, "putting conmen in prison" in the end means "smart conmen will avoid prison". It's this moral defeatism that gets me.

Sure, there will be people who do immoral deeds and avoid being caught, but how are we better off by not trying to catch anyone?

It's even in the open, that the large corporations pay little taxes, everybody is a witness to that. You (as a society) can change that system if you want.

View on HN

I can't speak for the other person, but I think I have a similar perspective. I don't like big corporations, I think many smaller businesses are better. For one, if only a couple companies exist then you don't have many choices. For another, working as, what previous generations might've called a wage slave, feels very soul crushing. I think society would be freer and people would be happier working for smaller companies that they owned and had bigger impacts in. On top of all that, a few big companies means concentrated power and that means a few rich folks can leverage their power to political ends to get more riches and more power etc.

"Tax the rich" sounds kind of like a good idea at first but then you take into account the point about how the rich have lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Rich people and companies already figure out how to subvert tax laws. Why wouldn't they figure out how to subvert the new laws they are clamoring for too?

Put another way, is Bezos supporting this law because he wants to be worth less?

I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting. Let's bring legal cases on all the questionable tax strategies big companies are engaging in. Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me. It seems more likely they'll dodge the increase and smaller companies will get hit with it.

>"I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust."

In theory I am all for it but on the other hand what would be the allowed size? I can hardly imagine mom and pop shop producing Lithium Ion cells, starting foundry etc, etc. This measure could put country to severe disadvantage against any other that does not implement same measures.

To be more practical and keep competitive edge internationally I'd just milk big companies by way of taxes and make sure there are no loopholes and perks like foreign earning exceptions etc. And outlaw political corporate lobbying.

> I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting.

Well, I don't see how it's feasible or desirable to do things more directly. You're saying BigCos are a problem, and you want to disincentivize their formation, then picking them on one-by-one basis will actually require more expertise and more effort, compared to having laws (e.g. tax laws) that apply broadly, and then enforce these laws.

We have laws precisely so that we wouldn't have to decide every case individually, and that the rules are clear to everyone, so they can avoid possible (and arbitrary) punishment.

I also think that as long as you want to tax all corporations the same, there will always be an inherent advantage in being big. That's why many people suggest progressive taxation in various forms to disincentivize such empire-building.

> Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.

This is a straw man - nobody is arguing just for raising taxes and then not enforcing those laws, we would love to enforce these laws of course. But having them is the first step to enforcement, I don't think your approach (enforce something without support from laws) is more viable, even legally. It requires more regulatory expertise, which you argue we are lacking compared to corporations.

Also nobody is really arguing against tax code simplification, but it only can get you so far.

A couple big companies versus hundreds of small companies in a given industry is a strong feature of leftist driven governance, whether it comes from republicans or democrats. For the little guy they are definitely not.

Big governments love a couple big businesses because it’s much easier to infiltrate, influence, control and ultimately procur wealth with that small group of businesses rather than attempting to influence 100’s or even 1000’s of smaller and independent companies.

So the next time you see 3 domestic car companies, and 3 airplane makers, and 4 toilet paper makers, 3 oil companies, etc. Understand they want it that way because of control and $$$$.

Don't equate big state with left. It's really two independent things, and not how most leftists think, in my experience.

when people say stuff like this

> all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation"

I think they are usually talking about avoidance (legal), not evasion (illegal). while some avoidance schemes do toe the line of outright evasion, I (perhaps naively) don't believe ultra-rich people routinely employ illegal tax strategies.

personally, I'm okay with the fact that some people will inevitably break the law and not get caught, as long as it's not pervasive. if nothing else, they will have to live with the anxiety that the music might stop for them at any moment.

what I'm not okay with are the "tax the rich" initiatives that look good when condensed to a set of talking points, but in reality are just a tax hike for the upper-middle that will be easily (and fully legally) avoided by the wealthiest people. convince me you have a solution for that before you come for even more of the wages I actually work for.

> Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem?

Isn't a complex tax code a moral problem for the same reason? The other way to attack the problem would be to simplify tax codes more.

You've read something into the post that isn't there. It isn't taking a position on equality. Poster might or might not support it as a value.

Notice that there isn't an argument that Zuckerberg should have less money. There is an argument that Mr Jones should have more. As far as anyone on the left is concerned that would decrease equality (the obvious way to achieve it is less transfer payments from the middle class to the poor).

> the obvious way to achieve it is less transfer payments from the middle class to the poor

This is an oft-touted talking point, but not actually correct. If you add up all the numbers, most social welfare in the West proportionally goes to pensions and healthcare. Poverty relief is usually a smaller budget than corporate welfare. This article (0) shows the distribution for the US.

Additionally, part of US social welfare specifically enables companies like Walmart to get away with not paying their employees a living wage, so is de facto corporate - not social - welfare. In short: thinking of it in terms of "the poor are the problem" only helps hide the wealth transfer from the middle class to the upper class.

There is no way for the middle class to have more money while keeping the wealth for the upper class constant, because the system already trickles up middle class wealth. At some point, we should be expecting companies to pay their dues and change rules to make them: corporation tax, liveable wages, overtime compensation, emissions, pollution, workplace safety and perhaps even off time caused by burnout.

0: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40....

If welfare didn't exist, corporations would be forced to pay those wages directly.

UBI solves all these issues nicely. People get to spend the money in the way that works best for them. Because they aren't 100% tied to the corporations, the worst, lowest paying jobs gain leverage when negotiating.

While not the best solution, it is far better than current welfare. Even Milton Friedman supported UBI in this context.

> Because they aren't 100% tied to the corporations, the worst, lowest paying jobs gain leverage when negotiating.

They're just shackled to a government handout making them totally dependent on the government of the day's generosity or lack thereof.

Do we not consider the people who are getting pensions and relying on the government to pay for their healthcare as the poor? They've got no money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com