Hacker News Reader

Comment by leeroyjenkins11 | Hacker News Reader

If the government takes half of what I make it would probably be time for a revolution. I make a good living, but having half of what I make support 3 other people that are not my family and just giving them cash. Like being on the afternoon of Wednesday and realizing that all the work I did in the week so far was taken away to give to someone else without my input is insane. And I give over 10 percent of what I earn to charity, but I decide what causes to support and who to help.

The nibbling around the policy is because they know what you proposed would mean they get tared and feathered so they just use it as an excuse to buy votes.

View on HN

Hello from Scandinavia. No Revolutions in sight, government takes 70% (taking both tax and vat into account)

you can not take both income tax and VAT into account, because VAT is payed by the retailer really. That would count VAT twice.

The retailer gets to claim any VAT they pay back from the government. Individuals do pay 60-70% tax (if you include payroll), but it's better to look at the overall taxation rate which is ~50% of GDP.

I think most of EU countries your total tax burden is already 50% of what employer pays. Mostly we don't see that part and only talk about what employer has to pay that is less than 50%

But even some countries at certain brackets have the only income tax part over 50%.

So flat 50% of total tax burden would not be unheard of.

The government already takes about third-ish if you’re a wage worker in the US. Is there something special about 50% in return for, say, UBI (for you a 12k tax rebate), and guaranteed heath insurance that is unpalatable?

Like I get the pessimism of taxes just disappearing to the ether but this whole idea is predicated about everyone getting something of tangible value that equalizes around the median income.

Like I also make good money but that makes me care less rather than more about my tax burden. Like I’m comfortable enough that I don’t really care than I’m putting in more than I get out.

At what annual income level? I'm not a tax expert, but that sounds like a couple times more than minimum wage.

Whereas 50% at all income levels is going to be very frustrating to someone earning $35k/year in addition to their UBI.

> everyone getting something of tangible value

Paying $40k in taxes in exchange for a UBI of $35k is not "getting something of tangible value"—it's losing $5k. Those with low income (and thus low taxes) get something from UBI. Those with higher income do not. At the margin one might consider the difference to be something like a premium for unemployment insurance, but that only goes so far.

> Like I also make good money but that makes me care less rather than more about my tax burden.

If you really don't care about how much money you take home, why don't you switch to a lower-paying (but less stressful/demanding) job? Those taxes you claim you don't really care about represent unnecessary work put in relative to what you have to show for it at the end of the day.

Right, I’m not disagreeing with you, that’s what I meant by “equalizes at median income.” I just mean that economics are felt directly unlike “I pay payroll taxes for… stuff… probably?”

> If you really don't care about how much money you take home, why don't you switch to a lower-paying (but less stressful/demanding) job?

Because I have a high-paying not very demanding low stress job. So on the theory that I could be making more in exchange for more stress I guess I already took your advice.

> Those taxes you claim you don't really care about represent unnecessary work

But that’s true of all taxes. I still make more money when I make more money. At that point we’re just arguing over the number. And I would kinda rather everyone have UBI and healthcare when it what it costs me is “a non-quality of life affecting amount” which is why progressive taxes work.

> Because I have a high-paying not very demanding low stress job.

In that case I suppose congratulations are in order for winning the lottery.

> I still make more money when I make more money. At that point we’re just arguing over the number.

The number is important because at some point it's no longer worth the extra effort. People can almost always get more money by working more or putting in more effort, and yet it's rare for anyone to dedicate their entire life exclusively to their work. Reducing the reward from work shifts that balance point, even if you're not technically "working for free".

> And I would kinda rather everyone have UBI and healthcare when it what it costs me is “a non-quality of life affecting amount” which is why progressive taxes work.

Since we're talking about taxes here it's less about what you're willing to pay and more about what you're willing to make everyone else pay. If it were just about the cost to you there would be no need to make it compulsory—the government will be happy to accept your donation.

You have enough to support 6 people, but, because you donate enough to support 0.6 to a beneficiary of your choice, a revolution would be required if you only had enough to support 3? Where do you want the money for UBI come from, or do you just not want it full stop?

>have enough to support 6 people

Because he chooses to trade his time and effort for it.

Exactly. I can live on a pretty small amount of money where I am, and I'd be pretty uninspired about working any extra if 1) my basic living expenses were paid and 2) my extra income was taxed at 50%.

And if a lot of people felt like I did, society wouldn't be producing enough for me to actually live on the UBI, ...

Serious answer: I think a lot of people envision UBI coming directly from government printing ala stimulus checks - not taxation.

The fact that inflation benefits the haves more than the have nots is… ignored.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com