Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluecalm | Hacker News Reader

Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use (or wealth you have in that country). Why someone who made millions in Poland (and paid taxed there) should pay 20x for living the same life in say Spain as a typical resident there?

It's so easy to say "moral" but I struggle to see the moral principle at play. I understand paying proportionally to resources/wealth in that country. I understand paying progressively for those or income in that country but why pay in proportion to what you have already build in another place?

View on HN

Live in that other place, then, mate.

As it is I live for a few months per year in Spain for free. One of the reasons I am advocating for sane taxation instead of knee-jerk one (like wealth tax on world wide assets). I would really like to pay my fair share there but as it's nothing or a leg I choose nothing.

> Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use

It is proportional to the resources you use in every case where that is possible. It is nonsensical to say "Well, you used only 2% of police time this year, so that's how much police-tax you'll be paying", not least because it is impossible to put a "usage" on the benefit of having police in the first place. Where it is possible, like how much land you own, you are taxed proportionately.

>Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use (or wealth you have in that country).

This is analogous to asking why should software be priced on value delivered, vs priced on costs incurred in producing. Value pricing is much more common.

The value you derive from living in the country of your residence is higher that your poorer neighbors; hence you are charged more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com