Hacker News Reader

Comment by tu7001 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe not only companies, but government too, can help, like lowering taxes, for example.

Do you think think that taxes are a primary source of stress for most Americans? Remember, the US is now passed the threshold where 51% of people get more back from the government than they pay in taxes. For around half of Americans, they have an easier month when their taxes filings are processed.

The way that lowering taxes might help is in ending the massive subsidies the government hands out to various businesses to try and bolster this negative feedback cycle. While I am a strong proponent of a social contract and socialized health care, they are potentially enabling poor working conditions by having the populace pay for the care required as a result of those conditions.

Does your 51% stat include sales taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, electricity taxes, etc? I believe you are talking about federal income tax and not including other forms of taxation. Is this correct?

People getting money back from tax filings is an indication of too much tax being taken out of their paychecks. Isn’t it? People pay taxes throughout the year. Once a year, for most people, they formally file their taxes and some get money back.

This includes income and all sales. It is not the exact case in every state, it's an average.

"Rebates" can exceed your total tax obligations.

Do you have a source on this? I find it hard to believe that 51% of all taxpayers receive a net rebate when taking into account all forms of taxation. If you can’t find one no problem. I’ve heard something similar to this but it was applied solely to federal income taxes.

Or increasing taxes on the wealthy and using that to provide a better safety net.

Wealthy isnt a clear definition. You are wealthy to a someone on this planet

I would gladly pay higher taxes if the money were spent on homelessness or education or healthcare instead of the military.

Why wait for the government to get its act together? Why aren't you spending your own money on those things right now? Pick your favorite organization and write a check. Or, even better, get involved and give money directly to those in need.

I can imagine that people would be in a similar boat that I am in: I am charitable, I enjoy giving time and effort to good causes that directly help people (eg volunteer work in orphanages, feeding the poor).

When I want to donate money (I am in a position to do that far more than I do currently), I am left with the insight that actually there is no charity that isn't evil in some way. Examples of evil include very high CEO/upper management salaries, stuff like "fundraisers", performing acts of charity that sound good but actually do nothing (or actively harm), etc.

Every time I come to the conclusion that it's easy to do good, but practically impossible to donate to something good in an effective way. With the way my life has been progressing and how I suspect a lot of people's lives progress as they age (less free time, more relative income) this effectively means that charity stops out of necessity as time goes on. I would love to have a solution to this, as it does bother me.

Because unless everyone simultaneously acts with coordination, these problems are too big and complex to address without some kind of coordination. Even if that coordination is decentralized, it has a cost. Weirdly, no one ever donates to "coordination of cancer fund collection."

"Weirdly, no one ever donates to 'coordination of cancer fund collection.'" What do you think the American Cancer Society does?

Waste most of their donations on scandalous compensation of leadership to solicit high-end donations to continue said cycle.

I do donate to homeless shelters and cancer research foundations, and I hope other people are also donating to causes important to them! But I don’t have enough money to make a dent in the problem. Collective action is the only way to make progress.

Bingo.

It has worked so well for San Francisco, we should sink more money into it.

It seems clear enough in context to me. Is it worth it to get into a semantic argument about what consititues wealthy on what is a tech website? Or is the definition of wealthy actually unclear in this context?

It is if you're trying to derail the argument!

Fine, the top 0.05% earners in the US.

Wealthy in my opinion is at least the top 1%. Most experienced tech workers are there.

Right, but most tech workers still pull the majority of their yearly earnings via the income tax AMT brackets. I'm not sure that's the place where people have complaints about the system.

It's more about the systemic unfairness of investment based income.

Ah, I get it. Yes, I agree with your direction, that charging lower tax rates so people who claim 'capital gains' instead of salary pay less, because they are investors or some bs.

With a trillion dollar deficit, what could go wrong?

Easy, just cut the spending from the labor rights enforcement agencies. That should solve our workplace issues.

If we really want to go next level, maybe we can make sure that that tax cut goes primarily to CEOs, instead of workers, as well.

if we stop protecting people from mistreatment and racists hiring, what would get better? I don't understand your comment.

It was sarcasm. Lowering taxes is often touted by right wing leaning economic politicians as a way of boosting the economy and making it more competitive. But that 1) only works in certain types of economic landscapes 2) has a dubious track record, and 3) leaves out of the picture that often tax cuts often come at the expense of social programs (in its most extreme, right-wing form, see Starve the Beast)

Since, in America, the party that most strongly advocates tax cuts, tends to do so to the benefit of the rich, and at the expense of labor and labor-helping social and enforcement programs, I was trying to make a joke to point out how absurd an argument OP was making.

The track record is not dubious. Look at the countries that do it most, now look at what it's like to live there for an average person. The track record is objectively terrible. The politicians who say otherwise are receiving very poor advice (or are actively seeking poor advice) to the point where I suspect it might be active malice for personal gain.

> maybe we can make sure that that tax cut goes primarily to CEOs

What does it mean for a tax cut to "go to" one group vs another?

Is this a serious question?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-ca...

Stop spending so much on military?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com