Comment by geebee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by geebee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is that gifts to charity aren't coercive. I know, it's strange to say that it's a problem if it isn't coercive, and I'd agree that many of the inefficiencies of government stem from the coercive nature of taxes (no need to convince people to give you money if you can just take it by force). But I'm really a moderate in all of this - I personally don't think a modern state can survive on donations, or a "pay only if you think the government will do a good job with the money" tax code. We're gonna have to collect some taxes, rich people (in my opinion) should pay more than poor people, and there's no way people, rich or poor, are just going to pony up out of a deep affection and fondness for the federal government.

If tax rates are going to be paid and progressive (they actually aren't), then they'll have to be coercive. I think what Mr. Buffet is arguing here is that the rich need to be coerced into paying more in taxes than they currently do. I'm inclined to agree with him, even if I have to hold my nose as I do.

It's not just that - even when we're talking Warren Buffett here, the scale of the US govt is totally different. Buffett's entire fortune ($50B according to Wikipedia) would only cover a few weeks' worth of borrowing and then we're right back where we started only Warren Buffett has no more fortune. It's silly to say we should expect him to do that.

What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." He's not interested in paying $XM to reduce the debt by $XM, but he would happily pay a personal cost of $XM if it meant reducing the debt by $XB.

(This is called "collective action," and it's also Groupon's business model.)

>What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more."

No he isn't. He's saying precisely the opposite:

"I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax...But for those making more than $1 million...I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more...I would suggest an additional increase in rate."

He's willing to pay more if everyone else at his income level pays more.

Don't be obtuse, the parent (and Warren Buffet) clearly meant others in his income bracket.

Why not? It's not like it's all or nothing. The taxes paid by the others today will be at least somewhat useful to the federal government before the billionaires pay their "fair share". If Buffet pitches in, it's just that much better for the federal government, and an example to set for his friends.

Even at the current tax rates, Buffet properly pays more than you do. And he certainly pay more than those who are on the various forms of government relief.

  More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc.
 
  The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.

More is not a relative term.

And no I am not talking utility, but cold hard cash numbers.

And i'm talking percentage of income and percentage of income after deducting cost of living.

That is a stupid way to measure how much one should pay in tax, honestly.

You rent, electricity, food and clothing doesn't go up because you double your income (unless you move, but then you presumably get better housing too). Why should your tax?

Because a) you can afford it better, and b) you have benefited more from the society that taxes help pay for.

As a business owner, I am perfectly happy to pay more as my income goes up, because my business depends on a well-run society in a million ways.

I'll assume you're trolling but the relatively inelastic nature of fix costs like room and board, food, entertainment etc. is part of the reasons for promoting a progressive tax system. Those who have made fortunes here in the us are likely those who have benefited from federal and state oversight and infrastructure, which is an additional justification behind taxing the wealthier members of society at a progressive rate.

For the anecdotal insight on this: paying about 20k a year in federal taxes with my current annual salary is nothing compared to the impact of the 5k or so a year in taxes I paid when I was a poor waiter/college student in terms of its impact on my budget. At this point I could easily pay out an extra 10 or 20k with out severely impacting my quality of life or rate of savings; corollary, a few extra thousand back when I wasn't making all that much money would have been the difference between sleeping on an air mattress versus a real bed, or having enough good (as in nutritionally worth while) food to eat.

Most people do move to better housing, buy more expensive food/clothes and use more electricity when they double their income. And as that doubled income doubles, the amount they are willing to pay for/use those items also goes up. Just as the amount they are willing to haggle for these items goes down (note: I'm talking about majority, I know there are exceptions).

So yes, your tax should go up with it as well.

I was a little worried that when I wrote that the rich should pay "more" without specifying that I meant a higher tax rate, someone would point out that they would pay "more" in the absolute even at a lower tax rate (as if I'm unaware that 10,000,000 * .24 > 100,000 * .24).

I really like open debate and discussion, but why do we go through this charade of nitpicking? It's clear that my post supports progressive taxation, so why get all crapped up about some non-existent ambiguity around the word more. If you're opposed to progressive taxation, and you think that warren buffet pays so much "more" in the absolute under a regressive or flat tax that it's fair to tax him at a lower rate than your average middle class worker, by all means, express your opinion. I certainly wouldn't downmod someone for disagreeing with me, and I think that probably goes for most of the people on hacker news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com