Hacker News Reader

Comment by skybrian | Hacker News Reader

What’s an example where they took a side on taxes?

Elon's companies famously pay very little in taxes, he spent last year attempting to gut the federal government, he complains constantly about how much he pays in taxes, and he's been very vocal about California's recent efforts to tax very wealthy people.

The California Billionaire Tax is a bad idea. It's not that wealth taxes can't work (most of the US taxes property just fine), it's that taxes need to be fair and predictable. The phase-in is too narrow and its implementation is too arbitrary. Why $1B? Why $5%? Why won't CA voters hit up billionaires again?

Maybe, maybe not, but it's an example of Elon taking a side on taxes, per the original post.

Why is my tax rate 30-40%? Why are billionaires like 0.1%? Why won't the U.S. and state governments hit me up every single paycheck, year after year?

Like holy smokes, who amongst these rich men will not be harmed!

"Why $1B? Why $5%?"

You have some numbers that are less arbitrary?

I feel like every opposition I read to wealth taxes is someone saying that we shouldn't do it, because it won't be perfect. Without offering an alternative to the status quo, which is nothing.

We can iterate on taxes if they're ineffective, but it's unforgivable to not try and do something in the face of so much inequality.

I sort of implied that it needs to be predicable (annual) and less arbitrary (bracketed). A one-off tax sends the message that you can be taxed whenever and for whatever. Unpredictable policy sends a message that somewhere isn't a stable place to live or do business.

This is not my reaction to just you. This is my reading of "any time a wealth tax is brought up." My recommendation to you, given you seem to be acting in good-faith:

Make it clear "What you want a wealth tax to look like instead" But also, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, so I think any state setting the grounds for how they're going to try this, is worth supporting and iterating on.

A few days ago he tweeted something along the lines of:

“Bitches Money No Taxes Party”

I think he deleted it afterwards

Support for Trump, or even Republicans writ large, means support for reducing taxes (both estate and income) on the wealthy, while increasing them on consumers (via tariffs). Musk has been an ardent supporter of Trump.

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, this line of reasoning makes no sense in a two party state where each party offers a menu of positions. Supporters are forced to make tradeoffs and pretending otherwise just gives you an incoherent picture of reality.

In which states does the Republican party support increasing taxes?

"Two party state" as in a government where politics are bifurcated. In a one party state, a citizen's voting history isn't informative whatsoever about their beliefs. In a direct democracy, their votes give you a complete map of the positions on any issue that came up. In the US, we only know that an R voter prefers the entire set of R policies over the entire set of D policies. Maybe they're pro-taxes, pro-welfare, anti-immigrant, pro-life, and pro-gun, and they weight these positions such that it makes sense to sacrifice the taxes and welfare to get the rest. So, while the party is anti-taxes, everyone who supports it may not be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com