Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbutler | Hacker News Reader

While I agree this is common human nature, 1) you seem to be speculating about billionaires without actual evidence, even anecdotal, and 2) individuals differ - some may have the maturity and perspective not to worry about it.

However, in support of your point, while Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both say billionaires and other "better off" people should pay more taxes, to my knowledge, they haven't been unilaterally sending checks to the government for the difference between current taxes and their ideal amount. They seem to believe that their private foundation can make better use of their excess money than the government can. They're willing to advocate additional taxes for groups, rather than just for themselves.

View on HN

Let's replace the term "billionaires" with "rational actors" then

"emotional actors"

What kind of idiot pays more than they owe in taxes? I'm sure you don't either.

I don't know why some people seem to expect that of billionaires. It's not rational behavior for them or anyone else, so why do you think they should be behaving that way.

I've seen this more than a couple times in HN comments and it always befuddled me.

marginal utility is much higher for the government (and the public) than for you

I think that statement is backwards.

Are you asserting that the government (and the public) will get more utility (benefit) from the extra 1 dollar on its $2.7 billion budget (increase of .000 000 04 percent), than I would from the extra dollar in my net annual income (on the order of a thousandth of a percent)?

That's a pretty incredible contention.

On a per-dollar basis, you indeed get more marginal utility from the extra dollar than the government would.

But on a percentage basis (in a progressive taxation scheme, and especially in the higher tax brackets) the government gets more marginal utility from a 1% tax increase than you would from a 1% tax break.

Nope.

In any bracket and at any percentage, the government will be adding $x to it's huge budget by taking $x from an individual or organization's much smaller budget.

(* Note that it really isn't valid to compare marginal utility between entities. It's an individual, relative measure, rather than an absolute quantity.)

I don't think they should pay more than they owe, and I'm not sure why you interpreted it that way. (Though I have paid more than I'm required to sometimes because of the pain of dealing with records and filing. Struggle with it until it gets to an acceptable level, then just pay to be done with it).

But Gates and Buffett both say that they SHOULD be paying more in taxes - but they don't. So what they're really saying is, all those other guys (the "well off") should pay more, and then they'd pay more, too.

This supports the original poster's contention that the billionaires would seek that tax break (for "fairness") even if they didn't need it.

Reading it again, I think I must have missed "However, in support of your point" which changes the meaning.

> So what they're really saying is, all those other guys (the "well off") should pay more, and then they'd pay more, too.

The well off don't pay much tax, and they will probably pay none at the top end (they'll donate to charity, for example, which they work at, and the charity will fly them around to their meetings, pay for accommodation, etc). Generally it's the middle class who end up paying tax until it's not worth working any harder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com