> its usually just a notch above their own (well within their social class status).

I'm a tech worker in the public sector.

To be blunt: tax me more, please.

Ok, big talker, step up:

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Reporting and Analysis Branch 2

P.O. Box 1328

Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

That's not how it works. Get Elon and friends to donate half his wealth and then we can talk.

Progressive taxation is a good idea...

GP said “tax me more.” Nothing is stopping him from paying more.

What he really means is tax me (and certain others I deem appropriate) more.

Specifically, this is how it works.

Are Elon’s rocket and car company infringing on your well-being? What about the pensioners holding Tesla shares? Are they stifling your ability to come up with some funds for the public good?

They infringe if they don't pay their share of what is needed to provide for the common welfare, defense, etc.

They are paying their share, for every worker they pay the appropriate taxes on the wages and those taxes are there to provide the common welfare, defense etc. since they pay their workers quite a lot they probably pay more than needed, so not sure why you would single them out, many companies pay much less like Walmart etc, they pay so much lower salaries so therefore contribute way less taxes per person they need to work there, complain about those first.

Why is that amount their share, and not more or less? Corporate taxes are pretty low, and also capital gains, so I tend to think it is much less.

Oh, I forgot, poor victim Elon! The right-wingers pull out this rhetoric so consistently, it's a parody of itself every time. But now Elon Musk is a victim? Whose next? Trump?

It's not "their share", it's your fantasy of getting part of their money that you're trying to impose. None of that money is yours to decide the fate of it.

How do we pay for the enormous amount of common public goods, such as roads, a legal system, safety, security, education, health, NASA, etc etc, if we don't jointly pay for them?

And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay?

(I think we both are in good faith. No need to imply I'm a thief or oppressor.)

That's a separate question. The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money. You can't just say "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed". There's nothing "fair" in this. It's not what "fair" means or ever meant. Especially given that Elon Musk is already paying for so much - and still you think it's "not fair" he doesn't pay more, with the sole foundation for this being that you want more.

> And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay?

Yes, but despite them paying orders of magnitude more than you do, you still complain they don't pay their "fair share", the definition of "fair" being based solely on the fact that you want them to pay more. I don't see any justification for claiming this has anything to do with "fair".

> The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I am the owner of your money, in fact. Hand it over. Post your BTC here (nobody else touch it, it's mine).

> "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed"

We are equal under the law and we all should pay for it, nobody treated differently.

> the definition of "fair" being based solely on the fact that you want them to pay more.

When did I tell you what my basis was?

The image of Musk whining 'it's not fair' like a 6 year old is pretty incredible, but in fairness to Musk, someone else is doing it. But for reasons unknown - why are you advocating for this complete stranger?

I just point out your pretense at "fairness" is nothing but deception, and you have to resort to clowning and ad-hominem attacks as a response, which indeed proves you don't have any proper argument beyond "me want!". If is not me and not Musk who cries childishly "not fair!" when things are not as you like, as you can easily witness, and others are reluctant to finance your wants.

Your surprise that somebody can object to untruth where it's not personally beneficial to him tells yet more about your approach to fairness.

Nobody is stopping you from contributing more. In fact, contributions to charity are tax exempt.

But if you want to contribute more to the government directly, others here have pointed you to some good resources.

The individual wants his class to be taxed. Telling the individual they can simply pay more does nothing for everyone else in the class. Your reply is unserious.

Not only do I want everyone in my "class" to contribute more to society, everyone significantly above me should be contributing a larger share. This is the basis of progressive taxation.

If we're just airing what we think about taxation, I think people with low incomes should pay more than they do currently in taxes, so that everyone feels like they have skin in the game. People generally don't take as much care of something that was dropped in their laps as something that they had to work hard for.

Currently, over half of all federal personal income tax collected is paid by under 5% of taxpayers, and the bottom 50% of income earners as a whole pay under 3% of all federal income tax collected.

> and the bottom 50% of income earners as a whole pay under 3% of all federal income tax collected.

What percentage of annual cash flow in the USofA do they earn?

Is it more than 3%?

According to this source[0], the bottom 50% of income earners who paid 2.32% of all federal personal income taxes collected in 2020 comprised 10.18% of the share of income. So yes, it is more.

[0]: https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...

You're equating giving money to the government with contributing to society, which is not the same thing. Politicians will give your money to any cause that will get them reelected, be that vanity projects or cronies that contribute to their campaigns. That's not even the worst case, they can spend it on the military killing people, spying on the populace including you, or distributing it in some other unjust way.

If you want to actually contribute to society you are better off investing it in some productive way or giving away to people in need as directly as possible. Government is a necessary evil, don't give it a dime more than what's absolutely needed as it can get out of control with little room to escape.

Begging for a tax increase as a proxy for societal contribution is something else.

I work 60 hours a week and volunteer for 20 more.

Not only do I want everyone in my "class" to contribute at least as much as I do, I want them to actually contribute something, not just voidposting about how they have too much money and wish the government would take more of it.

The entire discussion seems to have veered into the unserious.

While true and a fair rebuttal to all higher tax suggestions, increased tax on people like OP would have a much larger effect than just them giving a bit more away.

I'll make you a deal in which both of us come ahead - pay my taxes for this year. I'll even go for federal only. If you're in, I can accept venmo, cash, btc or anything commonly accepted. Think about it - you get less money, as you wanted, the money go to the taxman, as you wanted, and I get a little bit for helping you.

Unless, of course, you, as usual, meant that it's me that is going to be taxed more? While you are already getting paid from my money?

Another way would be to ask for pay reduction. Same effect on the public money, much less friction and transactional expenses. I'm sure your boss can find a way to make it happen.

These arguments nearly always come back to the fundamental desire (greed) for "Giev moniez pl0x.", as you say the limit is above their own wealth as to not be an inconvenience to themselves while siphoning monies from those around (and presumably above) them.

It would make for better discussion if these social justice warriors were at least honest about what they actually want.

Most people in this thread aren't making 6-7 figures. The boogeyman you're railing against isn't here.

Are you kidding? This HN.

Very few people on HN are making less than 6 figures.

I make less. It sucks.

How many people here aren't making 6 figures? I'd wager a slim minority. And I'll bet that some who show up here are making 7 figures. Did you think you were replying on reddit or twitter or something?

If you look at the job threads on HN you'll see a huge number of Europeans (and otherwise non-US persons), many of whom likely make less than $100k+. This isn't 2015, HN has quite a broad non-SV audience now.

Saying social justice warriors on hacker news is just awesome.

The grandparent comment argues for "businesses [which] are democratic institutions" and a "hard cap" on wealth which will presumably be taken and distributed to people with less wealth, for the goal of "do[ing] substantial good".

Ergo, arguing justice (FSVO justice) for society.

As such, I am of the position that this is one of those rare situations where the term "social justice warrior" is meaningful and accurate.

I agree it’s accurate, but you said “these social justice warriors,” which made me figure you were doing more than referring to the author. It seems like the goal of invoking the term was to aid in your dismissal of the author’s positions by linking them to a derided stereotype of activists. If I’m wrong then I apologize.

If you think about it, Social Justice is objectively a good thing. Being "Woke" means to be aware the United States is a white supremacist society. These terms are used as if they were Ad Hominems, but they're kind of the opposite.

The people complaining about these things are literally self-identifying themselves as the bad guy. We're not making you use these words. We're not making you self-identify as the bad guy. We didn't put the rake there, but they're proudly stomping on it anyways.

They’d probably argue social justice isn’t inherently good because it’s collectivist or something but yeah I agree with you.

Social justice isn't good because you have as many social justices as there are individuals.

Take for example the aforementioned grandparent: It's justice to redistribute wealth from those above some arbitrary line to those below (grandparent is presumably below it). That's only justice for him, it's bullshit to everyone else.

And you know what happens when differing senses of justice collide? Possibly made worse by fervor? Very Unpleasant Things(tm).

This is why we use legal justice rather than social justice: There is one and only one standard of justice that we all agree to accept after much deliberation.

There are only two measures of money: No money and not enough money. (Steinbeck)

I can't find it, but I think pg also said something like "when you're 20 if you're not doing bad you feel good. When you're 50 if you're not doing good you feel bad."

Which seems like common sense. A 50yo has fewer years to with to save up for any retirement, they face age discrimination, increasing health issues, etc. A 20yo has many years to work and pivot on case of setbacks, less age discrimination, usually fewer health issues.

True. Makes me wonder if half of being famous is coming up with creative ways to say the obvious.

> (well within their social class status)

I bet you've discovered the cause of this effect. I suspect we're seeing people who live comfortable lifestyles say "this seems about right" and then hedge a bit.

"Everyone driving slower than me is a slowpoke, everyone driving faster is a maniac"

This was on full display back in 2017-2018 when tax code was changed to limit the amount of State and Local taxes (SALT) that could be deducted from your Federal tax liability. The original SALT deduction, before the change, clearly benefited the wealthy, with large mortgages and living in high-tax (read: expensive) areas.

Cue articles like this one [1], which shows just how out of touch the wealthy can be:

> estimate the tax law’s impact on the value of a theoretical house in the New York City suburb of West Orange, New Jersey, purchased for $800,000 in 2017 by a theoretical family with a $250,000 annual income. Those home value and income numbers are very high by national standards — but middle class by the standards of large parts of suburban Essex County.

In 2017, $250K/HHI was in the top 5% of the entire US. Someone living in a house that cost 3X the median house, in one of the richest areas of the country, making more than 95% of everyone else considers themselves 'middle class'.

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-trillion-dollar-hi...

> considers themselves 'middle class'

They don't consider themselves middle class, statistically they are middle class based on (income, wealth, purchasing power, etc.). They aren't out of touch - nobody asked them - they just live where there's a higher cost of living. But it pays off, or they would move someplace less expensive, and housing would cost the same nationwide.

They are not middle class by any metric. They may feel overextended, but that can happen at any income level, and (as in this case) is often due to the spending side of the equation.

They are by the metric in the article, and in the scope of their locale. I get your point, that they have lots of money. But at the same time it's not relevant: Just moving doesn't solve any problems, because they'd be much less productive in their new destination and have much less money. They are gathered around and investing in - very successfully and productively - the high-productivity resources of NYC, which produce higher income, which produce a higher standard of living.

The average US locality's economy produces more wealth and requires more expense to live in than the average locality in a low-income country. You can't just move the Americans to the low-income country; they wouldn't be nearly as productive, and thus have less income. NYC's economy is more productive than almost any place in the world.

We could widen the scope to all of human history, and then we're all unimaginably wealthy compared to hunter-gatherers we were until 10K years ago. But does that mean we're just as wealthy here and now?

> Cue articles like this one [1], which shows just how out of touch the wealthy can be

Cue comments like these that show just how out of touch people can be I guess.

These people are not meaningfully wealthy. They have no more power than the next 5% down the ladder. Even among the top 1%, 90% are not meaningfully wealthy in terms of the power they can exert.

The idea that some poor bozo with a mortgage on an $800k house is wealthy for any useful definition of the term is nonsense.

> Whenever people talk about how much wealth is comfortable (or ethical) to have, its usually just a notch above their own (well within their social class status).

I haven't observed that, and it's very unlikely the GP is a "notch" below $10-15 million.