Hacker News Reader

Comment by cuzezzzbbfofai | Hacker News Reader

I hope we agree that we need more taxes, it doesn't matter if they are taxes on billionaires, taxes on property, taxes on sales, taxes on crypto, or taxes on the poor. Without taxes we can't have a civilized society.

View on HN

The number of different taxes is constantly increasing, obfuscating the total tax burden, and making democratic accountability almost impossible. Additionally, tax collections are already at a historical high, while government deficits world-wide are also at record levels, with services on the decline, and no realistic prospect of balancing budgets. This is true for most western countries.

Given the current situation, I do not agree that "we need more taxes", but would welcome your clarifying exactly what you mean.

For a long time I agreed with you, but seeing how the tax money is spent I cannot agree any longer. In most cases government is no longer even spending the money itself, instead it is giving the money to NGOs.

I would much rather see people keep more of their dollars and use them to 'vote' for the products and services that benefit them most, via their purchases.

Congragulations you have just rediscovered conservatism.

…and how to never have any large infrastructure projects like highways or just services that run at a loss while being essential like the EPA

It would be interesting to run the counter-factual on the EPA. Lawsuits around pollution were already increasing significantly prior to the EPA even company vs. company.

Would the resources have been better spent on a more efficient legal system, then leverage that?

*Disclaimer: This definition not valid in American politics, consult your doctor before self-labeling.

How much of California's budget is "giving the money to NGOs"?

I’ve long thought if you doubled tax revenue or halved it the public services rendered would be the same. Tax revenue is not the problem.

Taxes aren’t 0 right now, nor particularly close for anyone being taxed. Your statement supports taxes as a concept at all, but what’s the specific argument that they must be more than they are today?

No thanks, I pay too much in taxes as it is. California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Spending problem? What spending problem?

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/california-high-speed-r...

I think we should start with changing taxes on corporations/companies, specifically being able to indefinitely write off expenses against income regardless of size/etc...

Most companies take profit eventually, but if it's possible for a company to decide to never take profit and grow/acquire perpetually without paying any taxes on gross income, that's a problem.

That'd be like individuals being able to deduct living expenses and having uncapped pre-tax 401k contributions.

The ratio of the economy that gets collected as taxes has only gone up over time. Do you have an idea for how much should be collected as some ideal ratio? At what point do the effects of taxation become counterproductive?

Well, the general economic consensus is that for income taxes, the revenue-maximizing peak of the Laffer curve is around 65-70% [1]. Revenue maximization isn't necessarily the right primary goal, though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Income_tax_rate_a...

Same back at you. Clearly you think they’re too high. So what is the correct ratio?

The straightforward answer is there is no correct ratio. The best tax regime is the one that allows for sufficient funding of necessary and desired services and long-term economic investment while also balancing wealth creation with wealth inequality. That number isn’t fixed and it’s clear that it shouldn’t be evenly borne by the population as a whole.

I made no such claim. I simply asked someone who said that we can all agree taxes must go up to what level they were referring to and how they chose the number. If there is no fixed ratio such as you say, then their claim is clearly false.

Sorry, but this is bullshit. You’re not fooling anyone. If you think the GP needs to provide an ideal tax ratio, so do you. You don’t get to opt out and pretend you’re above it all.

this is the sadest assertion i've ever seen. if sucking the life out of people is the only way people can remain civilized then we are truely lost.

How else are we going to support public infrastructure and society?

More efficiency in spending? We have newer tools and equipment, technology, automation etc. Do more with less, that is called productivity.

You don’t understand the natural order of things: productivity for you(the worker constantly told to do more), not for me(governments of all sizes, middle management & execs, dumb owners).

Progressive taxation and more efficient spending.

(And in CA, fixing Prop 13, and knocking out more hurdles to housing development in desirable areas.)

Assuming we do need more taxes, the manner of taxation absolutely does matter.

haha. did you say taxes on the poor? I'd like to see you implement that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com