Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

> Why does anyone -- mob or Government -- deserve more than half of what you make?

The best argument is that policy like this has nothing to do with what individuals deserve. The idea is that people got rich in part due to all the nice infrastructure we have, and so we could tax some of the income they made off that infrastructure to pay for it all. This includes everything from bridges and buses to food stamps and free clinics - all the things that helped make getting rich possible.

Anyway I'm an anarchist and I would rather have workers in control of the means of production so no individuals get to take all the profits from collective endeavors for themselves, but if we're going to have a state that taxes folks, the argument above is the one I think is best.

Also others mentioned this but hitting the 55% tax rate at $250k means every dollar over $250k is taxed at 55%, but it does not mean that person pays 55% of their income as tax.

View on HN

> The idea is that people got rich in part due to all the nice infrastructure we have, and so we could tax some of the income they made off that infrastructure to pay for it all.

This sounds solid until you realize that country B next door has lower taxes, better public services or in some cases - both. Does the GP question make sense then?

And is less privatized for those public services, and doesn’t spend 5x what the rest of the word spends on a military industrial complex, and makes a lot of government income on natural resources.

I intentionally didn't want to name countries because this isn't about Canada or the US - it's a global issue and taxes (sadly) do not correlate to the level of public services.

I’ll take the lifestyle and economic security of Western Europe over anything in the US.

The US spends 3.4% of gdp on the military. This is nowhere near 5x the world average

I think you can find which stat I was pointing out, especially in real terms.

What would be an example of country B in your analogy, which fits those criteria, if we're talking in comparison/relation to the US?

I can't comment on the US in particular - I neither live there nor does my comment pertain to it specifically.

Rather, it was an observation of two things:

1. That high taxes do not necessarily correlate to extensive and quality public services.

2. That it is possible to find a better deal by hopping across borders.

Taken together, they put the whole "you need to pay back society" spiel into question.

If you want an example, look at the EU. Taxes are uniformly high in the EU but there is a drastic difference in the quality of public services (and as a consequence, your chances in life).

> If you want an example, look at the EU. Taxes are uniformly high in the EU but there is a drastic difference in the quality of public services (and as a consequence, your chances in life).

While taxes are uniformly high in the EU there is no such uniformity in size, population, gdp... making your point about taxes moot.

We are talking about a US tax proposal. I'll bite, what is country B you are talking about that is next door and has better services and infrastructure and lower taxes? Heck, remove the "next door" requirement you put in there and I still think your statement is indefensible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com