Hacker News Reader

Comment by raldi | Hacker News Reader

Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

Speak only for yourself, please.

I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens.

The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply - they are on the military complex side.

Why isn't the statement that people on high incomes can afford to pay more tax generally true? Simply feeling that the tax you pay is adequate does not mean paying more would be unaffordable. Certainly you could more afford it than someone on an income of half or a quarter of yours.

The question of whether reducing funding of the military complex would be a better policy than tax increases is a valid one, but unrelated.

The top marginal income tax bracket isn't the place where you pay the highest combined income + payroll tax, since the the larger part of tax is capped and it is otherwise flat, not progressive.

If your paying close to 50% combined, it probably means you'd pay less, as a percentage, if you made more. Getting close to 50% total rate is hard.

> Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

Here you go friend... http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

If what you just said is true, I'm sure you've already done this many times before. Lead by example, practiced what you preached, paid your real tax due.

And if not, no need to wait any more.

Here is also the public debt gift page (and stats) if you don't like the above one...

https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others.

Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.

> Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others.

The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged.

What I'm point out is hypocrisy.

>The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged.

Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?

I work for myself, and after I pay my taxes, I have about 2-5K left in my bank account. Then I live month-to-month from what I take in and what I chip away at.

If he can afford to pay more taxes, if he makes so much more than I, he can't be disadvantaged to me or the rest of us who can't afford to pay more taxes - by paying what he claims he wants to (but yet does not).

>he can't be disadvantaged

The point is not that they are disadvantaged in absolute terms, but in comparison to those who value profit above all else. Voluntary gifts to gov diminishes relative power of those more compassionate and increases relative influence of those who are less inclined to help others.

Also, the increase in taxation in question could be applied only at the top of income ranges.

Moreover, if you have $2-5K left in your bank account you may be considered privileged by some standards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com