Comment by westurner

Comment by westurner 10 days ago

12 replies

Then they would need to tax nonprofit religious organizations too.

Why don't they just make the special interests pay their own multi-trillion dollar war bills instead of sabotaging US universities with surprise taxes?

If you increase expenses and cut revenue, what should you expect for your companies?

ty6853 10 days ago

Why not just make a flat tax for everyone and end all the special interest pandering and exceptions for the rich. It is a poisonous misapplication of the time of our government to constantly be fiddling with tax code to favor one group or another.

  • TimorousBestie 10 days ago

    Because a lot of people, including many economists, believe capital accumulating endlessly to the same class of thousand-ish people is bad. A flat income tax exacerbates wealth inequality considerably.

    • ty6853 10 days ago

      Our tax now is worse than flat. Warren buffet brags about paying less % than his secretary.

      • TimorousBestie 10 days ago

        Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures.

        Comparing your ideal flat income tax with the current system is apples to oranges.

    • westurner 10 days ago

      I don't want to work for a business created by, uh, upper class folks that wouldn't have done it if not for temporary tax breaks by a pandering grifter executive.

      I believe in a strong middle class and upward mobility for all.

      I don't think we want businesses that are dependent on war, hate, fear, and division for continued profitability.

      I don't know whether a flat or a regressive or a progressive tax system is more fair or more total society optimal.

      I suspect it is true that, Higher income individuals receive more total subsidies than lower-income individuals.

      You don't want a job at a firm that an already-wealthy founder could only pull off due to short-term tax breaks and wouldn't have founded if taxes go any higher.

      You want a job at a firm run by people who are going to keep solving for their mission regardless of high taxes due to immediately necessary war expenses, for example.

      In the interests of long-term economic health and national security of the United States, I don't think they should be cutting science and medical research funding.

      Science funding has positive returns. Science funding has greater returns than illegal wars (that still aren't paid for).

      Find 1980 on these charts of tax receipts, GDP, and income inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 :

      > "Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

      > "Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

      From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 re: income inequality:

      > GINI Index for the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

      Find 1980 on a GINI index chart.

      • TimorousBestie 10 days ago

        Yeah, I mean, I think we agree on most points.

        I think there’s too many confounding economic factors to look at GINI alone and conclude the 1980 turning point was caused by nerfing the top income tax bracket. But a compelling argument could probably be made with more supporting data, which of course this margin is too narrow to contain and etc.

        • westurner 7 days ago

          Which factors confound? Oil price shock hostage situation and recession and then wars by oil people who did not pay their bill by cutting taxes and increasing expenses to meddle without just returns.