> What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?
To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.
The government provides services which are pretty fundamental to Google's success including enforcement of Google's various property rights (including IP) and providing a stable environment in which to do business. Surely the value of that service is broadly proportional to Google's income and well in excess of 2.4%
You sit at home and come up with a great new piece of software that’s worth 250 million and sell it IBM. Why should you pay more taxes than the bum sitting at home next door? After all you did not use land or resources protected by your countries military and police forces. You did not use public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams) or government backed institutions (banks, phone lines), or even workers or customers educated by the public school system.
Ask yourself why would IBM pay for such a thing? Well they have customers that use land and an educated workforce. And what about your bank? How do they keep from being robbed? Heck, what’s to stop your bank or IBM from simply shooting you vs. letting you keep the money?
Face it, without a government service there is no way to generate extract and keep 250 million in value. Because even Drug Lords depend on governments banning their drugs.
PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
Edit: You completed edited your comment since I replied... the new version is a lot more reasonable. Here's what I originally wrote, which doesn't 100% apply any more:
Did you actually read my comment? I think you're reacting to something I didn't say - taxes are fine, and you'd wind up paying for services you use in property taxes.
Land, resources, military, police, roads, bridges, dams, banks (really shouldn't be government provided as that causes all sorts of problems like we've recently seen, but that's a side discussion), schools - those are all local-based services. You'd pay for where you were using them, when you were using them.
> PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
Totally unnecessary and counterproductive to a decent reasonable discussion.
Yea, sorry I messed up the comment in editing and had the "After all you" stuff twice.
Anyway, I wonder what your thoughts are on the central idea. Mainly our ability to generate value is directly related to the value the government provides us. The ability to walk the streets unmolested is hard to quantify but the economic value is directly related to our income. Also, murder investigations are independent of the amount of land we own. And things like food safety and public vaccinations are cheap and valuable so bundling all of that stuff up and simply taxing income seems more reasonable than trying to have individual taxes on every transaction with the government.
As to leaving I think that's an important option. It's what separates slaves of the state from people that can accept the deal or move on. A young talented American can has many options for relocation to another area, the fact that so few do suggests our system has many benefits even if they are not all obvious.
Banks are not government provided. They are private. And all the time saying that is Government fault when the market turn to shit, it means that it is not science just something you want to be true, no matter what.
> PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
I see this argument all the time: "If you don't like it, leave." While that's always an option, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that's the best option or even a reasonable one.
This is a democracy! You can affect change in your government. Get out there and vote, run for office. You don't have to just lie down and accept things the way they are.
First off, I don't care who you are or what you do. No single individual creates that much value. A CEO makes big decisions, sure. But he receives advice from countless people on those decisions, and countless more people make those decisions a reality. Companies create value through the actions of hundreds if not thousands of people. The decisions of its well paid leaders are more valuable than the actions of the average worker on the factory floor, but not that much more valuable.
No CEO could possibly make decisions more important, more weighty or more valuable than the leaders of nations. And the leaders of nations make an order of magnitude less than the average big company CEO.
So no, I wouldn't produce value far in excess of $250 million. I would be getting paid way too much.
Second how long did you take advantage of government services before you became a productive citizen? What did you get from it?
Let's assume England. Just off the top of my head - for the first 14-21 years of your life you got: health care, a primary and secondary education, protection of the military, a higher education, use of the roads, clean water, clean air, sewage, trash removal and the BBC.
How much do you think you owe the government for 14 years of the use of those services? How much interest do you think you're paying on that debt? How about for the continuing use of those services?
Income tax is not the government claiming ownership over a man's labor, it is simply the minimum payment on a debt and the fee for continuing use of services.
> First off, I don't care who you are or what you do. No single individual creates that much value. A CEO makes big decisions, sure.
Do you know any CEOs in the mold you're describing? I know... one. He was VP running one division of a company that was flagging, actually the whole company was flagging. He systematically promoted, trained, recruited, and refocused his division, until it became 80% of the company's revenues, and 2/5ths of the rest of the company was closed off. He massively grew the company. He took over for a very smart guy who, for whatever reason, was slowly running the company into the ground. The company literally wouldn't exist without him, and not many others have that skillset. He doesn't make $250 mil, but he's worth everything he makes. The company wouldn't exist without him.
> But he receives advice from countless people on those decisions,
Who get paid for that role.
> and countless more people make those decisions a reality.
Who also get paid for that role.
> Companies create value through the actions of hundreds if not thousands of people.
...who also get paid for that role.
> The decisions of its well paid leaders are more valuable than the actions of the average worker on the factory floor, but not that much more valuable.
Executives don't get paid a massive amount out of their boss's benevolence... they get paid because it's a brutally hard, rare skillset that not many people can do. A good executive absolutely can be the difference between making billions of dollars or the company failing and going out of business.
> So no, I wouldn't produce value far in excess of $250 million. I would be getting paid way too much.
You're either underestimating how hard being a good executive is or underestimating how much value a good executive can create. How much would it be worth to Yahoo to have had better leadership? How much has Steve Jobs brought in value to Apple? How much would Yahoo be willing to pay Jobs to take over? Would he be worth it?
> Second how long did you take advantage of government services before you became a productive citizen? ... How much interest do you think you're paying on that debt?
In every other sphere, you can't sign contracts to be indebted to someone before you're mature enough to commit to them. Because the government provided a service to a 5 year old doesn't mean the government can assert any ownership over the child later. Think about if Nike gave you shoes, clothes, and food when you were younger, and then said you owed something later. It's ridiculous. People can't sign their life away before they know what they're signing.
> Income tax is not the government claiming ownership over a man's labor, it is simply the minimum payment on a debt and the fee for continuing use of services.
I agree that you should pay for the services you use. But the government isn't charging for services, they're saying that when you do productive labor, then you owe them money. Big difference. I disagree with that. The debt notion is crazy to me, you can't go in debt as a minor for something you didn't agree to it. It used to be that if someone provided services to you as a child, you'd become indebted or enslaved to them, but thankfully we got rid of that. The fact that you can't sign contracts until you're old enough to understand them is pretty clearly established in Western thought, and a good thing.
Look, I'm not against taxes. Services must be paid for, agreed. Just not out of your labor. You should never incur a tax for doing productive, honest work with your hands or mind. It's immoral to claim a share of a man's labor by force. By all means, charge for services. But you own your life and your labor.
Edit: Gotta head out, the cafe I'm at is closing (11 at night here). If you're actually interested in discussion, feel free to email me - this has been good fleshing out my thoughts more clearly on paper, and I've enjoyed the discussion. Email's in my profile.
Heh, posting the executives make too much money in a business oriented forum is bound to be unpopular. shrug
Look at the people actually taking salaries that high. They're the financial industry executives who just ran their companies into the ground and had to be bailed out. Look at the people actually creating tons of value. The people who are heros to most of the people on HN. Steve Jobs has a salary of $1. So do Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Good executives do not think so highly of themselves that they pay themselves that much more than their employees. Granted, the people in question can afford to do this because they are wealthy in stock and dividends.
To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.