
Ask HN: Do you feel like you're paying too much taxes? - montbonnot
Sorry for the people who live outside of the US (even though it might be the same issue), but I&#x27;m looking at the republican candidates tax reforms... One candidate is talking about 15% for small businesses&#x2F;corporates and the other talks about 16%. And something like 10% income tax for every employee. Meanwhile, democrats are talking about &quot;no tax increase&quot; or something like &quot;millionaires should pay %30 instead of 0-%10&quot;. By the way, if I make a million dollars today as a business owner I have to give away about 50% of my income to the government here in California. How do millionaires pay only %10 taxes?? Billionaires maybe..<p>Anyway, I&#x27;ll be honest with you, I am not a fan of republicans at all... but I came to the point where I have to listen to them a bit more carefully. Beyond all the conservative BS etc... tax is my main concern at the moment. I&#x27;m worried... It&#x27;s what impacts my life everyday. I feel like half of the money I earn is taken away and given back to the government. W2&#x27;s or business owner&#x27;s it&#x27;s the same problem. So my question is, what do you guys think about paying too much taxes? Do you care? Is this one of your main problems?
======
adam419
I take no ethical issues with the concept of taxes and funding things that are
in the common interest of the country.

What I do take issue with is the fact that I don't think my tax dollars are
being used as effectively as they should be, not just because I don't feel
like I get proportionate value from what they're supposedly funding, but more
importantly I dont think anyone is.

I think by and large the world runs on incentives, and I don't think that the
people whose job it is to allocate the resources obtained through taxes have
the kind of skin in the game that's necessary to make decisions in the long
term best interest of all parties involved. Anytime you have a scenario where
a organization of people in society unbounded by naturally selective forces,
waste and misallocation of resources will take place. It would make me feel a
lot better if my taxes were going towards a system characterized by bottom up
trial and errors rather than grand design, and unfortunately I think the
latter best describes how our country appropriates tax dollars to our
collective benefit.

As for your other question, I think there is something fundamentally fair
about the concept of proportionality. I don't think its the job or role of
taxation to act as punishment, because it's not as "fair" for someone making
50k a year to pay 20% in taxes to pay the same 20% as someone making 500k. I
find great injustice in this idea, as I want to live in a society that seeks
to empower people to become the best that they can, in a spiritual and
economic sense. Not send the message that those who've achieved economic
success somehow have engaged in a misdeed they have to pay or make up for.

~~~
dllthomas
_" As for your other question, I think there is something fundamentally fair
about the concept of proportionality."_

Proportionality of _what_ , is much of the question. Progressive taxation is
often justified by pointing at the fact that money (like most things) has
diminishing marginal utility. Taking $10k from someone making $50k is far more
of a burden than taking $100k from someone making $500k.

~~~
montbonnot
I'd push the logic even further. How about taking away $100k from someone
who's making $250k per year? If you reach $250k/y you're supposed to make a
statement. Someone who studied hard (for example), got into student debt, etc.
A doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, etc. You have to give away 2 times the salary
of that person making $50K/y. I think it's not far. Progressive taxation
should start way higher. If you make 1 million dollars a year you'll never
become a millionaire because you'd have to give away %50 of it. You have to
make 2 million dollars to earn one million dollars. I think it's unfair at any
level. Unless you're a billionaire. Billionaires should get taxed %50. You
still have half a billi left in your bank account to live your life like a
king... you'll be fine trust me.

~~~
dalke
> $100k from someone who's making $250k

40% tax? Sounds about right. So long as there are good social services. That's
about the taxation level in the Nordic countries, so with that I expect
universal health care, 1 year combined parental leave per child, free college
tuition to state colleges, state coverage of old age homes, free college, 30
days of holiday, good roads, clean water, etc.

> Someone who studied hard (for example), got into student debt, etc

If tuition is free, there's no need to go into massive student debt. Cuba,
with the Latin American School of Medicine, pursues medical diplomacy by
providing free medical education to international student, including US
citizens. It cost Cuba about $15K/year/student or about $90K total. Some of
the US citizens do this so they can return home and worked at a free clinic or
volunteer in communities that are underserved by those who go into $100Ks of
debt. (See [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cuba-offers-poor-med-
stu...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cuba-offers-poor-med-students-a-
free-ride/) ).

Those medical students are making a statement as well - that $250k/y isn't
what drives them to be a medical doctor. (I bring this up to highlight that a
lot of people make statements, not just those with high incomes.)

> Billionaires should get taxed %50

Note that "billionaire" refers to wealth, not income. Are you proposing a
global wealth tax of 50% of the richest people? Picketty's proposal is only 5
or 10% for billionaires.

FWIW, the highest income tax bracket in the US used to be ~90%.

> If you make 1 million dollars a year you'll never become a millionaire

If you make $1M/year with 50% income taxation and no wealth taxation then you
have 500K. If your lifestyle costs $250K/year than you bank $250K/year. It
will take 4 years to become a millionaire.

If there is a 50% income tax and 2% wealth tax on $1M/year income and no
savings (and the same spend) then you'll have $250K in savings for the first
year, $490K the second, $720K the third, $940K the fourth, and by the fifth
year you'll have over a million in savings.

~~~
montbonnot
Regarding your last point, assuming you'd be an employee with a steady income
of one million dollars per year. I believe you'd be a CEO in a large corporate
or you'd have a very generous employer. Then yeah, you could chill and plan
for the next 5 years. What if you're a small business with no regular income?
You made a million dollars thanks to your hard work in 2015, which might not
happen again in 2016. They took away %50 of that million dollars.

I agree, billionaire refers to wealth not income. At that level your income is
the money you generate from your own money. Which is an income, which should
be taxed at %50 if your wealth is in the billions of dollars. That's what I
was referring to.

~~~
dalke
Oddly enough, I am a small business with no regular income. (Self-employed.
Was an LLC in the US. Now an AB in Sweden.)

Regarding the "You made a million dollars thanks to your hard work" \- first,
that's misdirection. Don't make the mistake and think that working hard is all
that was needed for $1M; many more people work much harder than I do, and make
even less. $1 million also requires a non-trivial amount of good fortune. It
means I did not get a heart attack, did not get into a car accident, didn't
become depressed or burnt out from working too hard, etc. It means I guessed
right about where the market was going, and how to reach customers.

Regarding the question of how to handle tax on $1M if I am uncertain about the
following years.

First, I can live for 5 years on $100K/year, so 50% tax still leaves a huge
amount. My business is little more than me and a few computers, plus
conference and customer travel.

Second, quoting [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-
taxed-29...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-
taxed-29675.html) :

> If you will regularly need to keep a substantial amount of profits in your
> LLC (called "retained earnings"), you might benefit from electing corporate
> taxation. Any LLC can choose to be treated like a corporation for tax
> purposes by filing IRS Form 8832, Entity Classification Election, and
> checking the corporate tax treatment box on the form.

Third, I would look into setting up a Delaware C Corp.

What's wrong with any of these three options?

~~~
montbonnot
I went over these options when I incorporated. Nevada, Delaware and Wyoming.
Unfortunately, I'm the only member of my LLC and my office is my house. For a
software company selling online it is not recommended to incorporate in a
foreign state with these conditions. Usually more than 5 members and at least
a physical office located in Delaware for instance. Otherwise the tax burden
can become overwhelming and my tax liability may actually increase because I'd
be viewed as a foreign entity operating in these states. It's easy on paper
but when you start digging it's not that easy.

Filing as a C-Corp? :) I'd be taxed twice. The LLC would have to pay income
tax on its earnings then I'd have to pay taxes during the distribution to all
the members (myself). This will be viewed as income tax. Definitely not.
Though, filing as an S-Corp would take away the annoying/abusive self-employed
tax of %15. Problem, again, the IRS... they hate S-Corps and they will make
sure I fail to comply. My problem with filling as an S-Corp is that the LLC
wouldn't pay self employment tax but the member would have to. So if I make $1
million, I withdraw $1 million (which is the goal), I'd pay the full self
employment tax anyway. Does it make sense?

Last but not least, regarding your 1st point it all depends on your goals. I'm
not rich and I'm still alive. Obviously I already know I can survive with $100
k/y not a problem. Now, majority of the people are looking for security first,
then comfort and finally, they want to become rich. I personally want to
become rich first. Then I'll be looking for comfort then security last. I'm
looking for freedom, that's my main goal. We have different goals so we can't
argue with each other on that specific point unfortunately. I view taxes as an
obstacle... some don't which is fine.

~~~
joshuanomed
I think you need better tax advice.

An LLC only pays taxes if it has elected to be treated as a C corp by the IRS,
otherwise income & losses pass through to the members.

An C or S corp only makes sense as a sole-proprietor if you have substantial
other assets to protect, or expect to accept investments from non–individuals.

You need far better tax advice than you're getting, wherever you're getting it
from.

If your goal is to pay absolutely no taxes, then that's not going to happen if
you want to rely on the systems those taxes pay for in the US.

If your goal is to legitimately reduce taxes and spread income over multiple
years, there's legal ways to do so which a proper tax advisor can guide you
through.

~~~
montbonnot
We're saying the exact same thing. "Income passes through the members" =
members pay income taxes = federal + states + self employment tax = +%50 if
your income is $1 million. You can eventually avoid the self employment tax
filing as an S-corp.

"that's not going to happen if you want to rely on the systems those taxes pay
for in the US.". That's what I'm saying, there's no way around it besides the
republicans tax reform.

"spread income over multiple years". That's what someone mentioned already.

Am I still not informed? Should I need better tax advise?

~~~
joshuanomed
Yes, you need better tax advice.

Waiting for Republican "tax reform" is like watching Lucy hold the football
for Charlie Brown. If you are holding off managing your business cash flow
until this "tax reform" is set in motion…you are going to be waiting a very,
very long time.

------
joshuanomed
Politically I vote Democratic at the Federal level and a mix between Democrats
and Republicans at State/local level. That's shifted in recent years as the
GOP has purged moderates out of the NY State party.

I think we should either pay enough taxes to cover our routine government
expenses, or cut the expenses to meet the revenues from taxes.

Generally the GOP talks about cutting taxes and spending, but shifts the
burden to debt and various user fees. Democrats get blamed for raising taxes,
but generally raise taxes to meet existing obligations (as well as use taxes
as punitive means to change social or business policy).

For 2014 my household had an AGI of approximately $900k, of which we paid
around $250k in US Federal taxes, roughly $70k in NY State taxes, and another
$32k in NYC taxes. So, roughly 42% tax rate when you combine all three (I'm
ignoring sales taxes).

I don't think I pay too much in tax.

Would I like it to be less? Sure. But I like having roads that are paved,
bridges that don't fall down, police and firemen who are paid a decent wage.
None of these services are free. Many of these services (at least in NYC)
started out as commercial services in the 1800s and shifted to being
government produced and funded.

You know why? Because humans suck at forecasting their own needs. I don't have
kids, but I pay for schools in my taxes. I don't plan to have a fire, or be
the victim of a crime, yet I continue to subsidize the people who are victims
of crimes, even (indirectly) the people who commit those crimes.

Americans seem to be uniquely blind to the benefits of the social system we’ve
created over the past 230+ years. All we see are the system, its bugs and
inefficiencies, the corruption, the costs. We fail to recognize the benefits.

The US economy is an _extremely imperfect_ capitalist system, but until
someone explains to me clearly, without waving hands, or relying on the Laffer
curve, how to fund socially shared obligations without paying taxes, then I'll
pay them and use other forms of influence to try to change how my taxes are
used.

Because the alternative is to resort to building a castle and a moat, and
hiring a bunch of flunkies to guard me and my moat and my money, and
effectively create my own little government.

~~~
montbonnot
If you make $900k/y and you're fine losing $378000 then we need a flexible
system. Where people like you you'd be working %42 of their time for free,
while people like me would chose to earn each and every minute back. Time is
more valuable than money. I'd be fine losing %42 of my annual salary working
%42 less.

~~~
joshuanomed
So, you don't need any public services at all?

I'm not losing money, I'm contracting out a variety of services I'd otherwise
have to pay for.

~~~
montbonnot
I do. But a police officer gets taxed. A fireman gets taxed too (a lot in my
opinion). What are they subscribed to? Themselves? How about using big
corporate money to pay for that? Look at Apple they run most of their offices
outside of the US to avoid being ripped-off by the US government. If they get
a fair tax bracket then they'd bring their business back in the US. Then we
could use that money instead of our own money.

~~~
joshuanomed
Apple keeps a lot of its cash “overseas” because of 30+ years of tax policy
changes to shift the tax burden from businesses to individuals.

As long as business can leverage “overseas” cash assets to issue debt in the
US without paying taxes on the cash, they'll do so, only until the interest
rate on the debt exceeds how much they'd have to pay in taxes to repatriate
the cash.

------
stegosaurus
Do I think I pay too much tax? Yes and no. I'd like to pay more, but I have
basics to take care of first.

I think that taxes should be reserved for those with some level of financial
stability/independence. I don't know how to come up with a benchmark for that,
though.

If I earned what I do now in a low cost of living environment, then I could
pay 80% and still get by just fine.

Put simply, as a UK citizen, to a very good approximation, a worker earning
50K pa pays the same amount of tax whether they own a 5 bedroom home outright
or whether they live in a tent. (Council tax / property tax exists but is
generally small).

I don't think that's an efficient policy. It makes bootstrapping much more
difficult than it should be.

------
laughfactory
I hate taxes, plain and simple. This is in part for the same reasons I hated
cable TV (and cancelled it): I don't like paying a lot of money for things I
don't want, need, or support. But then there's the issue of fairness. We live
in Southern California and pay every form of tax there is. And does the IRS do
a cost of living adjustment? Of course not. So my $73k here gets taxed at a
higher level... Even though we pay a lot more for everything here. So I think
I'd be less pissy about it if they'd adjust the tax owed by the local cost of
living. But yeah, it does chafe that we spend trillions of dollars on the
albatross we call our modern government.

------
exolymph
"By the way, if I make a million dollars today as a business owner I have to
give away about 50% of my income to the government here in California."

This is if you make a million dollars in salary or in profit. If you reinvest
that money into the business, you aren't taxed to nearly the same extent,
while still retaining the value. If you have a million bucks floating around,
you're also in a position to invest your money outside the business and take
advantage of capital gains rates:
[https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html](https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html)

Obvious disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

~~~
montbonnot
Sure.. what if you're an LLC making apps (single owner). How do you re-invest
your million dollars into your business? Your business consists on a laptop
and yourself. That's all you need to make apps and to sale them on the app
store... You would most likely be working from home. So you have to file a
regular income tax since you'd be a sole proprietorship. The business money is
your income money because you have to "withdraw" that million dollars from
your LLC to your personal bank account. If you leave it in your business it
would be taxed anyway. So at the end it becomes regular income tax and you
fall into the seventh bracket (federal: %39) + state tax + self employed tax
(%15). It's more than %50... Sucks you made a million dollars and you have to
give away half. That's why I don't get it when democrats think that
millionaires avoid taxes. There's no way around for most of the small business
owners.

~~~
Avshalom
Well then you didn't make a million dollars, you made 500k. Gross is an
admittingly galling fiction but is for day to day purposes pretty much that, a
fiction.

~~~
montbonnot
Transform these %50 taxes (money you're giving away for free) into time.
You're now working %50 of the time for free while you could spend more time
with your family, kids, friends, learning things, etc. It's not a fiction,
it's reality.

~~~
Avshalom
No you're working 100% of the time for less money than the gross wages number
on your check.

~~~
montbonnot
Yep, reality sounds like an nightmare. Thanks for re-clarifying :)

------
tmaly
It does not really matter at this point which person you vote for. The giant
Gov Credit Card has been used to buy a bunch of stuff. The taxes will not go
down as the monthly payments have to be made to pay for all these purchases.

Yes it is a little crazy that most people pay an effective 50%+ tax rate and
there is little to show in return.

Singapore is probably one of the better models for how taxes should be, but
everyone likes to promote this myth that a country as large as the US could
not do the same thing.

I say why not.

~~~
twoquestions
Care to elaborate on what makes Singapore's tax scheme so good? A quick glance
looks like they have a progressive system like ours, just with lower rates.

EDIT: That sounded hella confrontational, and I don't mean that at all. I'm
really interested if Singapore has found a better way to fund their government
that we don't use for some reason.

~~~
tmaly
Most of what I discovered came from this post that was on HN a while back
[https://gyrovague.com/2013/10/30/half-the-donut-why-an-
entre...](https://gyrovague.com/2013/10/30/half-the-donut-why-an-entrepreneur-
earning-100k-gets-to-keep-over-99k-in-singapore-but-under-57k-in-san-
francisco/)

------
sharemywin
Rich people as a class invest and save more as a percentage of income. what
are you going to do with that dollar you saved on taxes anyway put it in the
stock market, real estate, etc? it's just an illusion collectively all that
does is raise prices on assets. So, as a whole the rich will still own the
same stock, bond, real estate they just paid more for it. then someone comes
along and raises taxes the all the sudden asset prices fall. but you still
only own 1 share of xyz.

besides I'd be much more worried about the trade war they all want to start
more than anything.

Next, would be all the federal workers they want to layoff to get those taxes
cuts. lay off a couple million people and see what happens to the economy.

------
tima101
I think that the question about how efficiently gov uses tax money is an order
of magnitude more important than the question of how much to pay in taxes.

Another related question is how efficient gov in allocating the help. I wish
there is a separate gov body that quantifies the efficiency of all
allocations.

Who knows, perhaps, when inefficiencies are removed, taxes we pay now is
enough to build a just society with big middle class. I personally consider
Wall Street's bailouts and international military interventions are among the
biggest gov inefficiencies.

------
aminorex
It is absolutely insane that anyone, person or corporation alike, should pay
taxes in the modern era. The government should just be honest and do in the
open what they do by obfuscation anyhow: Print the money. It's the only way to
avoid pervasive corruption.

~~~
myroon5
I think this is simplifying it a little too much and not considering the cons
of the inflation that comes with this system. It's an interesting thought
though.

