Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The same tax payers who know if they get sick, they won't be able to pay for it.

You've made a grave mistake in your appeal.

The top 40% of income tax payers are paying more than 100% of the total income tax base. The people that specifically do pay a massive share of the tax base, can overwhelmingly afford great health coverage. They're why we still have the health system we have, precisely because the system works well for them (short wait times, great coverage, and they can afford the cost of the insurance, most of which is paid for by their employers as part of their total compensation).

The bottom 25% have their health needs paid for by that top 40% income block, via Medicaid and other assistance programs. It's in fact the slightly sub middle block of 35% that are struggling greatly with health costs, and they barely pay any income taxes (they do pay FICA related taxes, which they get back in theory via late life entitlement programs).

Here's the actual fact of the matter: if your premise is the tax payers are getting ripped off, what you're talking about is the top 1/3 of US income earners getting ripped off. That top 1/3 is extraordinarily well off, in fact they're among the best off people on the planet in nearly every possible regard (average income, median income, net wealth, unemployment, health coverage, education, etc), and they pay modest tax rates compared to most developed nations.

Your riposte is a strawman argument on whether the rich should benefit more from the government because they pay more and their taxes help others (their same wealth that wouldn't have been possible without the government).

The government does not collect taxes, to privilege the wealthy to exclusive services. Quite the opposite, government provides services that benefits everyone instead of one minority group.

In redundancy, as I stated, I'm not a classist and I'm not disparaging the wealthy.

> Your riposte is a strawman argument on whether the rich should benefit more from the government

That's incorrect. My post was about two simple things: the parent argument was wrong, presenting an overwhelmingly false narrative factually; and second, that there is very little to be concerned about regarding the top 1/3 of income earners partially subsidizing a Tesla or SpaceX (or NASA, they also pay for that too), it's a non-problem.

You've ignored the body of my reply, you're being extremely parsimonious. Any money from taxes that does not benefit the general tax payer, is at the expense to the common tax payer (not to mention the neglect of the collection of payment for the externality costs for the privilege to common land).

You are now arguing that it doesn't matter where taxes are spent because it comes mostly from the rich. If that was the case, imagine if government only spent taxes on frivolous and unproven projects for private enterprise. It is doubtful that any government would continue to exist. It's a strange claim considering that the government continues to be over-budget year after year.

I think you're ignoring payroll tax and public subsidy of private sector by allowing them to hire people at below subsistence (because medicaid and food stamps are a subsidy to Walmart)

No, I'm not. Income taxes carry the extreme burden of the tax regime in the US.

The only alternative to partial subsidies for poor workers, is total subsidy (which is what happens if you try to make Walmart pay workers $20 / hour, tax payers end up paying for a total subsidy as those workers lose their jobs). That is your only choice. Highly developed nations in eg Europe also follow that exact model, despite their very advanced welfare state systems. Do you think the bottom 1/3 of workers in Britain - given how much lower Britain's median income is versus the US - are paying their full way in terms of costs via their very low incomes? No, they're being subsidized. Their healthcare and numerous other government benefits are being subsidized by richer people via taxation. The same is true in France and Germany as well, and essentially all developed nations.

The Medicaid and food stamp programs you reference (the part that are partial subsidies to Walmart), are overwhelmingly paid for by the top 1/3 in the US via taxation, just as in most developed nations. What exactly is your argument against that? You'd rather force Walmart to fire a million people courtesy of aggressive automation, by raising wages on them, just so the very well off top 1/3 aren't put in the position of having to subsidize that labor (to the benefit of Walmart shareholders, which are overwhelmingly made up of the tax payers footing that subsidy bill to begin with)?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-...

Payroll taxes are about 3/4 the size of income tax, and again you're ignoring the amount of federal outlays that are corporate welfare that benefits the rich. Again, Medicaid and food stamps allow people to take low income jobs and (barely) survive. In most OECD countries, higher incomes allow most employed people to meet their own living expenses (although their healthcare is still effectively subsidized).

The top 40% of income tax payers also benefit the most from society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com