Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Do you just oppose the use of tax dollars to support anyone or anything other than what you personally happen to use and like? What do you think about Medicaid, food stamps, the child tax credit (especially if you don't have children)? Assuming you aren't a student, do you oppose tax dollars going toward financial support for students? Do you oppose UBI?

Do you vehemently oppose the US federal electric-vehicle tax credit of up to $7500 until the day you decide you'll buy a Tesla, when you'll switch to staunchly demanding that it be radically increased? (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml)

These all represent your taxes going to support things that you are unlikely to benefit from personally, after all.

If you remove the impact to other people from the calculus of where you'd want tax dollars to go, then I think most people would opt to enrich themselves rather than not. But that's just not how the world works. The reality is that any given person's tax dollars are used on all kinds of things that will never directly benefit them, or even their families or even socioeconomic class.



I don't think anyone is against your examples. The issue is WHERE the tax money is coming from and the PROPORTIONS of tax paid in relation to overall income.

Unfortunately right now the middle class is being stuck with most of the bill on a PER-CAPITA income basis. And considering the wealth gap between the rich and the middle class is SUBSTANTIAL, it means we're essentially having relatively poor people (middle class) pay the bills of very poor people (lower class).

When you zoom out a little (and remove irrational emotions about the topic clouding your perception), it's easier to see the disconnect.


This is incorrect. On a per-capita basis the middle class is not being stuck with most of the bill. The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of federal income taxes (which are the largest source of federal income). That same amount of income tax is paid by the top 1,400 tax-payers.

Also no need for the line about irrational emotions - lets have some proper discourse please.


This isn't incorrect. I said per-capita relative to income, not to mention the difference in purchasing power of what's left. I'm not talking about the total amount paid by the richest.


Taxes are based on marginal rates. The more you make the more you pay. If you are a high earner making $300k in California your combined rate (federal/state/fica) is 38% and you pay $114k in tax. If you are middle class make $60k your combined rate is 22% and you pay $13.3k.

If you are a business owner and most of your income comes from capital gains, still not possible to pay anywhere near 22%. Rate on capital gains is 33.3% (20% federal + 13.3% state).


> Do you vehemently oppose the US federal electric-vehicle tax credit of up to $7500 until the day you decide you'll buy a Tesla, when you'll switch to staunchly demanding that it be radically increased? (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml)

It doesn't negate your point, but for Tesla specifically, no vehicles bought in 2020 or later are applicable for the federal tax credit at all (the page you linked acknowledges this). Raising the $7500 amount wouldn't benefit any Tesla buyers.

An entirely self-interested Tesla buyer would first want the per-manufacturer limit on the tax credit removed or increased. Then maybe have that credit amount increased.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: