Hacker News Reader

Comment by taylorwc | Hacker News Reader

So my disclaimer is that if I ever retired with a net worth in that neighborhood, I would also put the bulk of it to work combating poverty.

That said, it's his money. He can spend as he sees fit and unless he sees clubbing baby seals or something equally morally reprehensible as his aim, who are we to take aim?

View on HN

Clubbing baby seals and owning a basketball team are not in any common neighborhood of "morally reprehensible."

I am ready and willing to "take aim" and go even farther to stop someone, if that someone is behaving sufficiently immorally. My threshold for acceptable and unacceptable generally falls on the issue of whether an individual is harming another living thing. Killing to eat is acceptable. Clubbing baby seals because you're a sadistic billionaire is not acceptable.

Why not try to combat poverty now? The hypothetical "if I were rich..." adds zero value to the world, and it's so easy to say.

And I do. I donate regularly to several charities that are focused on poverty (both at a local and global level) and volunteer time at some of those. What my comment was meant to communicate is that if I had a substantially higher income/net worth, I'd be able to put a much higher portion of it to work doing that than I can right now, where more of my income has to go to a mortgage, car payments, and diapers.

In general I agree with you but with one caveat. Right now the very rich pay the lowest percent of their wealth in taxes in many decades. Taxation is the means by which society is able to make its desires known. I would agree wholeheartedly if the taxation was significantly greater than what it currently is int he U.S. (for the wealthy).

Do you have a source? The data that I've seen shows that the very rich pay about the same effective rate as back in the '50s. The rates were higher in the '50s, but the exemptions were much more liberal.

I was curious so I looked it up. According to this article the top 10% pay 68% of all taxes.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-e...

That’s the wrong statistic. The question is whether, say, Bill Gates pays a greater or lesser percentage of his income in tax than someone earning 50K.

Most of his income is probably from capital gains, which is only taxed at 15%. I think it's valid to point out very few individuals are paying a lot of the federal taxes.

It's 23.8% now.

Sure, it's valid to point it out, but it doesn't suggest any unfairness. You have to look at the percentage that each individual is contributing, and the super-rich do very well by that metric.

Also, the Heritage Foundation is not exactly an unbiased source on this issue.

Here's another take on U.S. taxation: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011...

They simply choose to emphasize different numbers. The number is correct, right? That link that you posted says that all Americans pay low taxes. My question is shouldn't we all be paying a little more?

Here is a source that gives tax revenue as a percent of GDP. This includes all forms of tax. Given that the very wealthy increase their wealth primarily through capital gains and not through income and the capital gains tax is quite low it appears reasonable to conclude that the very wealthy are not overtaxed. This isn't exactly how I phrased my statement so I should revise it. I'll revise thusly, taxes in the United States are not high in comparison to historical standards and are certainly not high in comparison to wealthy countries.

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/a-tax-impact-from-grand...

Another option if you have a strong political ideology is to start buying a few election like the Koch brothers have. It's amazing how cheap the world's superpower is. At this point the only hope we have is for billionaires with competing ideologies to battle it out in the political arena.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com