Hacker News Reader

Comment by manicdee | Hacker News Reader

Your privilege is showing.

Specifically, you are on a high enough income that you aren't worrying about food, much less mortgage repayments, job stability, whether you can afford fuel for the car this week, or whether you need to just rinse clothes in water to save the money you would have spent on detergent for more important things like food, rent, or bus tickets.

There are also pele out there who won't miss another $100k in taxes. Their worries are along the lines of "how can I make all my money work for me without swamping any single market?"

Taxation and social welfare is just the modern version of "feed your slaves." You should be happy to provide universal health care and subsistence income in order to ensure your future workforce is healthy, educated and stress-free. We treat our racing horses better than this.

View on HN

I wouldn't have a mortgage if I was worrying about food, car fuel or job stability. But, honestly, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the comment. I'm not some filthy-rich person that could afford to "not miss 100k in taxes". We bought a small, modest home so we wouldn't have to worry too much about these sorts of issues. Where is the privilege in that?

>"Taxation and social welfare is just the modern version of 'feed your slaves.' You should be happy to provide universal health care and subsistence income in order to ensure your future workforce is healthy, educated and stress-free. We treat our racing horses better than this."

I don't view the majority of our fellow man as "our slaves", that require some sort of food/handout from us. Nor do I seek to optimize their healthy and education with the hopes of some sort of workforce productivity boost / optimization, as you seem to imply.

Edit: made quote clearer.

>I wouldn't have a mortgage if I was worrying about food, car fuel or job stability.

Really? Mortgages last 30 years, are you sure your current level of income will too?

I'm not certain that my income level will last, but buying a house is my vote that tomorrow /will/ be better than yesterday.

Don't know why this was downvoted. The GP appears to believe no one ever has bad luck and everyone is as fortunate as he.

"The GP appears to believe no one ever has bad luck and everyone is as fortunate as he."

Do you honestly believe that that was the point I was trying to convey? My point was that there are ways for individuals to mitigate the risk and impact of those "bad luck" situations, without the need for government spending.

Mortgages are just loans, that's not the relevant part. The relevant part is what the mortgage is being used for. If it's being used as means of owning property and if you always have positive net equity in that property then you're not saddled with a mortgage for 30 years. If you're smart you keep around a bit of savings and if you find yourself in a situation where you can't pay your mortgage any more you simply sell the house (or rent it) and move somewhere cheaper.

Complaining about "privilege" is limp-wristed ad hominem intended to silence viewpoints you don't like, as evidenced by your refusal to take seriously zo1's points ("You should be happy ...").

zo1's arguments are valid or invalid independent of her/his "privilege" (whatever that even means).

Saying privilege doesn't factor in when someone trots out the old "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is just as much an attempt to silence a viewpoint you clearly don't agree with.

Nonsense. The view that (to paraphrase) "poverty is attributable to laziness" is ridiculous on its own merits; Your claim that an ad hominem is necessary to show how wrong it is is even more ridiculous.

Luckily, no one trotted out that argument. Even if they had trotted it out, making wimpy appeals to the claimant's "privilege" has no bearing on whether the statement "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is true or not. Such claims can be exploded in the same way as any other false claim. By addressing the argument and exposing it as untrue.

What do you mean by "factor in"? Are you saying I have my viewpoint because I'm privileged? Are you saying my viewpoint on the matter would be different if I didn't have the privilege? Or are you saying that my viewpoint is invalid because I have privilege?

Or something else, entirely? Really, I'm curious... As someone whose parents had no privilege and were poor.

Everyone should pay the exact same tax rate. The confiscatory, class-envy based taxation is unfair and unjust. If I make more, I pay more. I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. How is that fair? What right do you have to determine if someone 'needs' their money or not? This is America.

Besides, if that woman were truly destitute, she could have gotten Medicaid. We already fund programs for the truly poor.

Let's say you make $100k per year. Why don't you pay $80k to the government. I don't think you need that extra money right? After all, your take home pay would still be above minimum wage. Better yet, you really only need a studio apartment, you don't actually need a bedroom.

Just as I have no idea about your life, how can you presume to know anything about everyone else's?

If we taxed the 'rich' at 100%, it wouldn't even pay the federal budget for one year.

We don't need fewer people paying more taxes. We need more people paying tax.

<i>Everyone should pay the exact same tax rate. The confiscatory, class-envy based taxation is unfair and unjust.</i>

Not that current taxation policy is anything but ridiculous, but flat tax isn't particularly "fair", for many values of fair. For example, the burden of paying, say, 20% of gross income is wildly different for someone making 20k/yr vs someone making 100k/yr.

But at the same time, it is "fair", for other values of fair. (like "impartial", "unbiased", "unprejudiced" and "neutral") Also, "fair" is kind of location based... a lot depends on which side of the equation you sit.

"How is that fair?"

Flat in dollars is regressive in utility.

"If we taxed the 'rich' at 100%, it wouldn't even pay the federal budget for one year."

Not that I support the policy, but depending on how you define "rich" it might. Per Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+budget+%2F+us+total+...), the US budget is approximately 30% of total US income. That's going to need more than the incomes of the clichéd 1%, but not terribly much more. If you let us borrow the same amount we're currently borrowing (extracting current revenue by taxing the top at 100%: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+tax+revenues+%2F+us+...) that shrinks down to about 10%. Ignoring, of course, the very important point that those people aren't going to keep earning the same way when they don't see any of it.

Wondering if a flat percent make sense is sorta reasonable. But the rest of your screed is pretty idiotic.

And most civilizations have come to the conclusion that progressive taxation makes sense. The wealthy benefit much more than in a straight line proportion.

Your absurd idea of an 80% tax rate would never fly. People who won't miss another $200k a year in taxes are the ones already minimising their taxes to the point they are only paying a half million or so.

The wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few. Higher tax rates for higher incomes makes perfect sense when basing "far" on "ability to cope with the loss".

20% of a low- to middle-income salary is a far greater burden than a 40% tax on someone with an income exceeding $400k.

There is an old saying in my social circles: follow the money. If you want to make money, you arrange to take it from the people with the money. Luxury cars, luxury apartments, gastronomic restaurants, and so forth.

Why not tax these people more? They aren't actually going to miss the money, and ensuring that there are more healthy middle class folks with disposable incomes will actually help the rich get richer still.

Social welfare and a universal single-payer health care system is actually a grand firm of corporate welfare. Throw a living wage into the mix and you can reduce minimum wages to zero. How much better will the outlook be for entrepreneurs and startups in that environment? No longer will volunteer internships be exploitation, no longer will labour costs factor into viability of a business, and you will have many more consumers with spare change to serve.

Well... not everybody bases "fair" on "ability to cope with the loss" so higher tax rates for higher incomes does not make perfect sense. Wouldn't it be better to tax everyone at 20% and then let people volunteer to pay 30% if they want to help cover those that can't afford the 20%. This way everybody wins. Right now we generally have a large group of people that gets together and says, "We really need to help those poor people. And that guy over there is going to pay for it." It is super easy to vote for higher taxes for someone else. I'm curious just how many people would just volunteer to pay more than the 20%. How do those people feel now that the only person they can point to is themself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com