Comment by DuskStar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DuskStar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Think also about gun control, which we know is much more popular with the public than elites often think it is. One of the things that we’re seeing recently in American politics is an effort by activist groups to correct misperceptions about what the public does think to change the nature of the conversation in Washington.

This bit right here made me trust the article a LOT less. Poll responses on Gun Control are very highly dependent on wording and how much information is provided.

For instance, people might support "universal background checks", but oppose "you cannot legally loan a rifle to your brother for a hunting trip". Or they'll support "red flag laws", but balk at "laws that let police take anyone's guns on the basis of an anonymous complaint". Same policy, different presentation.

Another example in a different field is "how much should the rich pay in income taxes?", where people will answer "more than they are now" (instead of "less" or "the same") but if asked to pick a percentage they'll choose one lower than current rates.

> Another example in a different field is "how much should the rich pay in income taxes?", where people will answer "more than they are now" (instead of "less" or "the same") but if asked to pick a percentage they'll choose one lower than current rates.

And if you ask them what counts as rich, they’ll say “someone who makes more money than me” even folks who make $200k+.

I thought that the problem with rich people and taxes kicked in when you're so rich that most of your money doesn't come from ordinary "income" but from other creative ways that truly rich people can come up to when they have entire teams devoted to managing their wealth.

Even if people making $200k+ are certainly well off and privileged, I don't view them as the rich elite everyone is talking about. Perhaps I misunderstood something?

I've had multiple friends in that bracket explain to me how they saved tens of thousands through "tax optimization strategies" involving crypto wash trades or fraudulent home office deductions. If you've ever gotten options from a startup, you've probably benefitted from the 409a valuation process, which is quite a lot better than the "make up a number" process it replaced but still provides a lot of wiggle room (except at the end of a fundraising round) to produce an artificially low valuation.

Your perception lacks perspective. The top 25% minus the top 0.1% earn the lion’s share of income in this country. In every developed nation, this is the most heavily taxed group. Any taxation strategy that doesn’t heavily tax these folks but pretends to be left wing is non-serious.

In my country they are indeed the most heavily taxed group indeed. Isn't that the case in the us too?

The reason I'm confused is that whenever I hear the "tax the reach" argument, i hear talking about the Musks, the Bezoses, the Buffets of the world, not my doctor or whatnot .

If the USA really taxes more the poor than somebody who makes 200k then you guys really have a problem, but that problem is mostly a communication problem

Maybe you are an elite misinterpreting public opinion. The article is just about it.

My point was that one of their key examples of "the elites are wrong on what public opinion is" was a subject where "public opinion" is extremely dependent on wording, and that they themselves do not seem to realize this, and it's plausible that the elites might have a better view of the public than these polls do.

Some polls are built to gather information, others are built to advance a cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com