[jimmy1]

> It puzzles me that people hate taxes so much.

People's problems with taxes typically fall into two buckets, sometimes both.

1. On a fundamental economics level, the Government is an inefficient third party spender: it spends other peoples money on services it doesn't utilize. There is no feedback loop there besides bureaucracy.

2. We actually have a pretty moderate tax burden already, mostly footed by the average US worker. Everyone talks about the top rate, or federal taxes, but we also have sales tax, property tax, estate tax, in some areas a county tax on top of city or municipality tax, and additional education-related taxes, not counting the outlier states that have even more taxes on top of that. (There's a saying in NYC: Every day is tax day). The common worker pays the majority of the taxes, and they are the ones who are most sensitive to any increase in taxes, and feel pinched already, so they naturally, and very expectedly are against being taxed more. (Realize that the typical HN'er is not the average US worker, making ~60k median salary with few benefits)

[zzzeek]

76% of voters favor higher taxes on the wealthiest americans, 61% favor Warren's "wealth tax", and even 40% support a marginal tax rate of 70% on americans earning $10M or more:

http://fortune.com/2019/02/04/support-for-tax-increase-on-we...

this would contradict your theory that "the common worker hates taxes", since most Americans want more taxation, not less.

[refurb]

That’s kind of obvious, no?

It’s like asking somebody if they want free stuff. Of course they say yes, it costs them nothing.

Ask the same question where their own taxes go up and see what the answer is.

Reminds me of the HN thread about the 2018 tax changes (limited SALT deduction). The same people who call for higher taxes (many of them in the top 5% income range) start complaining about their taxes going up.

Everyone is fine with higher taxes when it’s someone “richer” than they are.

[zzzeek]

> It’s like asking somebody if they want free stuff. Of course they say yes, it costs them nothing.

OK, why don't you ask these same people if they think taxes should be raised on people poorer than them. Do you think 71% would agree with that also? Because that also costs these people nothing, right?

In other words I disagree with your assertion that Americans cannot tell, or care, for the difference between an under-taxed wealthy person and an over-burdened poor person.

> Reminds me of the HN thread about the 2018 tax changes (limited SALT deduction). The same people who call for higher taxes (many of them in the top 5% income range) start complaining about their taxes going up.

that is because property taxes vary wildly across different states due to policies of the local state governments governments and it amounts to punishment of states that have more comprehensive taxation and social services for their populations, in other words, have a larger number of Democratic voters. Taxation should not be distributed based on political affiliation. The states that have higher property taxes are less of a burden on the federal government since their populations are more educated, less desperately poor, and have better healthcare.

As you won't be surprised, I live in a SALT-sensitive state, but even people here who live below the poverty line in a house that was long ago paid for are being killed by their property taxes. They are poor people who are over-taxed and the recent changes made things worse. My taxes did not go up at all since my property taxes happen to be quite low in any case. However, I still oppose the changes in the SALT deduction, for the reasons above. So another anecdote of someone that can actually apply reasoning about the common good to a taxation question rather than caring only about myself paying more.

[closeparen]

More taxation for other people, not themselves.

If you hate taxes and love services, the obvious thing is to get someone else to pay for them.

[thrill]

Yet another reason why the Founders' recognition that ruling via a simple majority was an eventual death knoll for a society.

[anoncake]

I.e. democracy is bad if you disagree with the results.

[malandrew]

pitchforks and torches is also democratic. Just because something is democratic, doesn't mean that it is unassailably good. Democracy is another name for mob rule and provides zero protection for minorities against the majority. There is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.

[anoncake]

> pitchforks and torches is also democratic.

No, not at all. Democracy means rule of the people, not rule of the strongest.

> Just because something is democratic, doesn't mean that it is unassailably good.

Of course not. But if something is not democratic, then it is definitely bad.

> Democracy is another name for mob rule

Doesnt matter. That ``mob`` has a right not to be ruled by someone else.

> and provides zero protection for minorities against the majority.

It does not provide electricity either.

> There is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.

That is an accurate description of North Korea.

[kthejoker2]

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

See? Platitudes are easy.

[anoncake]

So you favor autocracy (and delusionally believe that dictators tend to be the sheep)?

[kthejoker2]

I favor the representative democracy with checks and balances that America has, and a strong bias towards preserving minority rights over majority rules.