Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/opinion/sunday/taxes-public.html
181 comments
The US isn’t Mexico or Colombia. The government is in charge and organised corruption is so difficult you get amateur hour stuff like $100,000 bribes that legislators hide in the freezer[1]. That is a tiny bribe and a ludicrous way to hide it. There are Bangladeshi civil servants that get bigger bribes and they get away with it. The joy of living in a country where the most corrupt state is a battle between Illinois and New Jersey is that mostly things work and mostly there are no bribes and when there are mostly people go to prison. A country like that is impossible to run a kidnapping gang in. The police can and do stop it if you try. Without an organisation all you have are fools. Fools don’t even shave and dress to blend in when they travel to the suburbs where there’s more money. Fools do pantomime crime instead of figuring out where the money is. The US has small areas of highly localised high crime, committed by morons. It’s worse than Switzerland or France but kidnapping, blackmail? The police are mostly reasonably competent and rich people either live in areas the police will take care of it or have security. If Jeff Bezos doesn’t try to hide his money why should you worry?
[1]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/...
[1]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/...
Jeff Bezos is in another league. If you don't have quite as much money as him, but still a lot (relative to the average), you are probably an easier target. Not just by obvious criminals, but even leeching family members or gold-diggers. The latter may leave you much worse off!
It can happen in the US too.
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/5498143/eddie-lampert-tryi...
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/5498143/eddie-lampert-tryi...
Even if everything you said had been true (e.g. Harry Reid became a millionaire just doing smart investment of his public servant salary) dealing with the fools trying to rob and kidnap you is not going to be pleasant.
I can tell all these things just by casually visiting a mall car park. I get to vote on the CEO's wages for the stocks I hold. Every public company executive in the country is a google search away.
Hell, I could probably locate a large list of rich people to go kidnap/rob/extort within 15 km of you just from online sources from the other side of the planet.
These problems you posit already exist for people with wealth and they (hopefully) take appropriate steps to protect themselves.
Hell, I could probably locate a large list of rich people to go kidnap/rob/extort within 15 km of you just from online sources from the other side of the planet.
These problems you posit already exist for people with wealth and they (hopefully) take appropriate steps to protect themselves.
This is true only for those that flash their wealth. I might be worth millions, but if I am driving a 10 year old Toyota, you wouldn’t know. Obviously this doesn’t apply to high profile jobs like the CEOs etc
It's also possible to purchase cars that are extraordinarily expensive that the average person walking in the street wouldn't think twice about:
- Renault 5 Turbo: now worth anywhere between £60,000 and £120,000
- Peugeot 205 GTI: £15,000 to £20,000
- Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500: one recently sold for £113,000 (https://www.evo.co.uk/ford/ford-sierra/20210/ford-sierra-cos...)
- Renault 5 Turbo: now worth anywhere between £60,000 and £120,000
- Peugeot 205 GTI: £15,000 to £20,000
- Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500: one recently sold for £113,000 (https://www.evo.co.uk/ford/ford-sierra/20210/ford-sierra-cos...)
If you don't flash your wealth but people have a way of knowing it you are still being safe thanks to the fact that there are many more rich people to attack, flashy or not.
In Mexico, and other countries I'm sure, wealthy people don't drive expensive cars (I suppose those who do, have drivers and bullet-proof cars). I've had friends held up at gunpoint while waiting for traffic to move, even in an old car. It's too easy to call attention to yourself with a nice vehicle.
Well that's a complete lie. I know plenty of people in Maseratis, high end BMW, mercedes, and Audis, amongst others. Only one of them has body guards, and none of them have ever been mugged, kidnapped, etc (or even know someone who has been kidnapped). No one has a driver or bullet proof cars either.
We must know very different people! I'm really glad you haven't had friends who have experienced trauma. It's really, really awful when it happens.
You can tell that somebody has 100k to spend on a car but not that this person has 10 millions.
> The government provides no bodyguards. The police investigates only after the crime. Anonymity is the most important defense. Don't take it away.
Does people that make more money keep it private thou? I see what cars people have, what neighborhood they live in, what clothes they wear, ... The tax returns mainly show how fare people is taxed and gives you information on how are your skills valued in the system.
Your arguments can also be used to not show public prices for cars, houses, clothes... but, we do it. It is just salaries that are hidden. But my manager knows my salary. And big corporations know the salary of hundred of thousands of employees. So, it is hidden only of part of the population.
This seems an appeal to fear without much justification.
> 2. People jump in front of your car, knowing you can pay when sued.
People drives Ferraris. I do not need to know your economic situation to know that your Ferrari has a good insurance. Is people constantly jumping in front of Ferraries?
> 3. People break into your house, knowing you have things worth stealing.
Thieves know which neighborhoods are richer than the others.
> 4. People hack into your private photos, knowing you can pay blackmail.
This has been done to rich and poor alike.
> The government provides no bodyguards. The police investigates only after the crime. Anonymity is the most important defense. Don't take it away.
I cannot understand how a comment with false information is the top comment. Of course police investigates suspicious activities even before there is a crime. What are you talking about?
I think that your fear is real. But it is not justified. The goal of letting others see the salaries is to get a more efficient job market. I can know if my salary is 30% below the average, or if I should change industry. It is a very useful information for the general population.
Does people that make more money keep it private thou? I see what cars people have, what neighborhood they live in, what clothes they wear, ... The tax returns mainly show how fare people is taxed and gives you information on how are your skills valued in the system.
Your arguments can also be used to not show public prices for cars, houses, clothes... but, we do it. It is just salaries that are hidden. But my manager knows my salary. And big corporations know the salary of hundred of thousands of employees. So, it is hidden only of part of the population.
This seems an appeal to fear without much justification.
> 2. People jump in front of your car, knowing you can pay when sued.
People drives Ferraris. I do not need to know your economic situation to know that your Ferrari has a good insurance. Is people constantly jumping in front of Ferraries?
> 3. People break into your house, knowing you have things worth stealing.
Thieves know which neighborhoods are richer than the others.
> 4. People hack into your private photos, knowing you can pay blackmail.
This has been done to rich and poor alike.
> The government provides no bodyguards. The police investigates only after the crime. Anonymity is the most important defense. Don't take it away.
I cannot understand how a comment with false information is the top comment. Of course police investigates suspicious activities even before there is a crime. What are you talking about?
I think that your fear is real. But it is not justified. The goal of letting others see the salaries is to get a more efficient job market. I can know if my salary is 30% below the average, or if I should change industry. It is a very useful information for the general population.
Sweden's tax disclosure laws keep a record of who requested this information, which is a good solution for your concerns
Not to mention that there are many other already public & private records that already can provide information on wealth (company ownership records, house ownership records, etc...)
Not to mention that there are many other already public & private records that already can provide information on wealth (company ownership records, house ownership records, etc...)
Yes and no.
All incoming and outgoing correspondence is kept on a public record and can be requested. So if you send in a request per e-mail or post, it can be accessed. But you can still can in anonymously or walk in to their office and request it physically, without having to identify yourself.
Source: Used to work as a journalist in Sweden, dealt a lot with requesting information from governmental and military organizations.
Everyones's reported income, address, date of birth, family and a whole lot more information is publicly available on request. If you have particular reasons (e.g. threat of violence), you can request to have your identity hidden and exempt from public disclosure.
All incoming and outgoing correspondence is kept on a public record and can be requested. So if you send in a request per e-mail or post, it can be accessed. But you can still can in anonymously or walk in to their office and request it physically, without having to identify yourself.
Source: Used to work as a journalist in Sweden, dealt a lot with requesting information from governmental and military organizations.
Everyones's reported income, address, date of birth, family and a whole lot more information is publicly available on request. If you have particular reasons (e.g. threat of violence), you can request to have your identity hidden and exempt from public disclosure.
There are regular news articles in Swedish tabloids like "Who makes most money where you live?". So this isn't correct.
Speaking from Norway, the media gets access to the complete tax lists, and are assumed to publish information contained in them responsibly. They have to use "journalistic discretion" and cannot make the full list available. For everyone else, lookups in the list are logged and available to the person that has been looked up.
Personally, I'm not sure I'm so super happy with this system, but it's very much in tune with our culture where being in a significantly better position than the average is seen as suspect.
Personally, I'm not sure I'm so super happy with this system, but it's very much in tune with our culture where being in a significantly better position than the average is seen as suspect.
In Sweden, the default is to make everything public, public domain style, so with income taxes for example, the amounts are public, but the sources of the income are not (because of personal integrity, not to be able to map military, police etc. employees).
A perhaps internationally unusual thing this creates is that entire police investigations, including interview transcripts, are usually available to download as soon as court proceedings begin.
A perhaps internationally unusual thing this creates is that entire police investigations, including interview transcripts, are usually available to download as soon as court proceedings begin.
It’s probably even more important to know income sources of government employees (I write this as a former employee of state and federal government). And FWIW you can lookup the salary of all federal employees, and that of government employees in certain states.
As a side note, this transparency helps expose potential corruption in handling evidence, awarding defense contracts, etc.
As a side note, this transparency helps expose potential corruption in handling evidence, awarding defense contracts, etc.
What additional information--since you mentioned anonymity, I mean in an entropy/information gain sense--is learned from income taxes? I should say from the get-go that I assume these public income tax disclosures would map names to income, but not names to addresses.
I would think we already have extremely predictive, though broad (e.g. interval censored), indicators of income and wealth that are sufficient to cause the threats you mention. Currently, we can map ZIP code to income. And we can map targeted names to ZIP code, or use consumer files to map large numbers of names to ZIP code.
There may theoretically exist a class of recluse who lives in a shack but makes a gajillion dollars. That person would be partially de-anonymized by this process. But under the current threat model, there are paper-poor people living in expensive or apparently expensive places who face additional risk as well. Net-net, hard to say which group has more people.
If the costs are the same, then the argument should focus primarily around the comparative benefits. That's a case I expect the article and other comments can articulate better than I can.
I would think we already have extremely predictive, though broad (e.g. interval censored), indicators of income and wealth that are sufficient to cause the threats you mention. Currently, we can map ZIP code to income. And we can map targeted names to ZIP code, or use consumer files to map large numbers of names to ZIP code.
There may theoretically exist a class of recluse who lives in a shack but makes a gajillion dollars. That person would be partially de-anonymized by this process. But under the current threat model, there are paper-poor people living in expensive or apparently expensive places who face additional risk as well. Net-net, hard to say which group has more people.
If the costs are the same, then the argument should focus primarily around the comparative benefits. That's a case I expect the article and other comments can articulate better than I can.
This is only true for the super rich. See Norway or Finland where the taxes are public. They have lower crime rates than the US. It seems that the publication has the opposite effects by reducing inequality.
I think that's a huge stretch. Norway and Finland have tons of other things going on that reduce inequality beyond just publication of taxes.
So maybe if rich were visible in the US they would have more incentives to make sure there's not so much inequality that poor people would think kidnapping their kid is a good course of action in terms of risk-reward.
I live in post-comunist country and I've seen crimes on the street back then and now.
I can't tell you how wonderful it is that people you meet on the streets have something of their own, something they would risk loosing by attacking you.
I live in post-comunist country and I've seen crimes on the street back then and now.
I can't tell you how wonderful it is that people you meet on the streets have something of their own, something they would risk loosing by attacking you.
It is not much comfort to the Norwegian familes extorted, that crime rates are low.
[deleted]
Why is it a huge stretch? I didn't say that it is the only one.
I'm saying that publicly releasing all tax returns would do nothing to release inequality unless many of those other factors (mainly high redistributive taxes) were in place, and at least the US has shown 0 appetite for those types of measures.
The US public has great appetite for inequality-reducing measures, as any poll will tell you. The political class does not. But perhaps publicly releasing tax returns would spur enough public disgust when people realize just how little in taxes the ultra-wealthy are paying that the above dynamic could change.
I fully agree, but at least by having the information what other people earn in the same company gives them a lever in salary negotiations.
It’s a huge stretch because you haven’t provided a plausible causal mechanism. All you’ve done is point out correlation and correlation is almost meaningless on its own.
This isn't the only difference between us and these countries
That is one incident. Do you have numbers for the US and Norway per capita?
Publication of tax returns does nothing to reduce inequality. A state which supports people does a lot to reduce inequality.
TFA claims that it does, because it galvanises people to do something about it.
Reduced income inequality is, according to TFA, a second order effect of publishing tax records.
Reduced income inequality is, according to TFA, a second order effect of publishing tax records.
This is fear mongering. Other commenters have pointed out that in other places on our planet, public information of wealth is, apparently, not followed by a deluge of targeted crime locusts.
It’s not a very reliable defense. I wouldn’t want to have to rely on only it.
There are many cases of this. And if you want to travel, you have to keep this in mind.
you can find that stuff with a phone book or other public directory of wealthy zip codes
If someone lives in Palo Alto it's a very high likelihood they have a lot of money or insurance that will pay out a lot.
If someone lives in Palo Alto it's a very high likelihood they have a lot of money or insurance that will pay out a lot.
> The government provides no bodyguards.
Fairly common to hear that some person has been placed under police protection.
Fairly common to hear that some person has been placed under police protection.
This is mildly paranoid. Everyone has public record that gives this kind of information away, as well, like records of housing sales data. Besides which we should also drastically reduce economic inequality which would reduce the motive for these kinds of activities, anyway.
NYT: Government should protect the privacy of its citizens
Also NYT: Everyone's income taxes should be public
What a bizarre half-baked (obviously political) response to something in the news. It's really sad that the bar for what gets published in a major newspaper is so low.
Also NYT: Everyone's income taxes should be public
What a bizarre half-baked (obviously political) response to something in the news. It's really sad that the bar for what gets published in a major newspaper is so low.
They intentionally seek to publish a range of opinions in the opinion section.
That some of them are contradictory is consistent with that goal.
That some of them are contradictory is consistent with that goal.
I do agree, and while this is an independent opinion piece, is worth noting that the author is a member of the NYT editorial board.
And that prohibits him from expressing his individual perspective? I don't see any reason why a newspaper should have to talk with a singular, homogeneous voice.
Not at all, and I didn't make that argument. But as a member of the editorial staff, he has put his name behind numerous editorials railing against Facebook and their impact on personal privacy (just google "New York times editorial Facebook privacy" for many examples). Given that, I found the author's brushing aside of privacy concerns in this article ("it's government information, not personal information" - yeah, that the government requires everyone to provide or else they put you in jail) extremely weak.
Not all opinions are equal. Much like a newspaper doesn't (and shouldn't) give an equal platform to an anti-vaccine advocate as they do a scientist, I think these kinds of opinions are so vile that they do not deserve publication, at least not in NYT. The bar should be higher.
It's essentially a piece promoting a policy that would be probably the single largest attack on the right to privacy in the history of the US. Why? Because a president the author doesn't like refused to release his tax returns. Very measured response. I'm sure there would be no unintended consequences.
It's essentially a piece promoting a policy that would be probably the single largest attack on the right to privacy in the history of the US. Why? Because a president the author doesn't like refused to release his tax returns. Very measured response. I'm sure there would be no unintended consequences.
> so vile that they do not deserve publication
It’s a policy that’s standard in several Northern European nations generally recognized as civilized and a good place to live.
You may consider it vile but from the perspective of the NY editorial board I don’t see why they would.
It’s a policy that’s standard in several Northern European nations generally recognized as civilized and a good place to live.
You may consider it vile but from the perspective of the NY editorial board I don’t see why they would.
> I think these kinds of opinions are so vile that they do not deserve publication, at least not in NYT.
This is ridiculous. I'm from a country with public tax records, and wholeheartedly support it. It definitely needs to be part of discussion when deciding how to tackle tax avoidance, corruption, and wealth disparity.
I've never checked my friends' or colleagues' taxes, even if I could. It's quite important that the tax records of the notable figures are public though.
This is ridiculous. I'm from a country with public tax records, and wholeheartedly support it. It definitely needs to be part of discussion when deciding how to tackle tax avoidance, corruption, and wealth disparity.
I've never checked my friends' or colleagues' taxes, even if I could. It's quite important that the tax records of the notable figures are public though.
And people get killed by extortionists, or live in cages, as a result of destroying privacy rights. You can't have freedom without privacy
The term "privacy" has become a hollow word that people use to criticise anything they don't like.
Generally, I see the concept of "you shouldn't be able to know anything about me, but I should be able to know everything about you" everywhere.
Notably in tech circles, this is prevalent in how we see hacking.
People who hack into other people's computers, IT people who snoop onto employee accounts, and people who support personal data breaches like the Fappening (saying stuff like "if they don't want to have their images become public, they shouldn't have taken them"), and publishing of personal emails (e.g. Wikileaks), all have had conversations with me complaining that Facebook is violating their privacy rights. None have recognized that what they are involved in is way, way worse than anything that Facebook has done.
Generally, I see the concept of "you shouldn't be able to know anything about me, but I should be able to know everything about you" everywhere.
Notably in tech circles, this is prevalent in how we see hacking.
People who hack into other people's computers, IT people who snoop onto employee accounts, and people who support personal data breaches like the Fappening (saying stuff like "if they don't want to have their images become public, they shouldn't have taken them"), and publishing of personal emails (e.g. Wikileaks), all have had conversations with me complaining that Facebook is violating their privacy rights. None have recognized that what they are involved in is way, way worse than anything that Facebook has done.
Yeah, the NYTs puts out tons of articles about Facebook and other social networks vioilatinig user privacy
If the true goal of this article would be something other than getting a hold of one specific individual's tax returns, it would be taken slightly more seriously.
The problem with the NYT is that every sentence within it now has to be processed with this perspective in mind.
The problem with the NYT is that every sentence within it now has to be processed with this perspective in mind.
So because of a single opinion writer the entire corpus of the New York Times should now be seen as a ruse for getting Trump's tax return.
Wow. I really will never understand how some people can make such bizarre leaps of logic like this.
Wow. I really will never understand how some people can make such bizarre leaps of logic like this.
This opinion writer is on the editorial board for the NYT. The standards should be hire than this, but the NYT has proved time and time again that much of their content is pure agenda pushing (political and economic).
The editors of the NYT decide what appears in the paper. That's the reason for such high consistency of the paper's topics.
It seems awfully coincidental that this is the first time in the paper’s going on to 200-year history this has ever been suggested.
One of the related articles[1] hedges more but seems designed to persuade the reader. It was published in 2010.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disc...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disc...
There's nothing bizarre about it, they (NYT) have proven time and again their bias against Trump. To me, it's an obvious conclusion.
It’s an interesting idea as it would make compensation transparent and eliminate a lot of unfairness.
In public sector, your salary is posted on a website. Everyone knows what you make, and thing like women and minorities getting paid less don’t happen. Outliers are known.
In public sector, your salary is posted on a website. Everyone knows what you make, and thing like women and minorities getting paid less don’t happen. Outliers are known.
For real life experience with this, see reports about Norway, Finland and Sweden. For instance https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-nordics-idUSKC... (random Google hit)
In Finland, tax records are public, but only top lists are published. To see records not on the top lists, you have to visit a tax office and view records on their terminal—no copies can be made, but you can take notes.
Note that at least in Norway only the high level numbers are public, like adjusted income, taxes paid and net worth.
These can are not really income etc as it depends on deductions which can change them a lot.
These can are not really income etc as it depends on deductions which can change them a lot.
Public sector salaries are publicly available not because we have a right to know how much you made, but because we have a right to know what we (as taxpayers funding government) are spending.
This is just an extension of the same idea: if I have a right to know I paid $2 of a $50k/year public servant, I also have the right to know that my neighbor didn’t pay $0.
> thing like women and minorities getting paid less don’t happen
Not really, you just make sure all the women and minorities get the poor paying jobs.
Not really, you just make sure all the women and minorities get the poor paying jobs.
There’s huge difference between public salary and public total income.
There is, and that information is also public, at least in my state.
What this does is remove the ability of the employee to negotiate and possibly get a higher wage. Companies will love this law, because they will just pay everyone a lower rate (no negotiating).
Even if you are better or have more experience at a certain job, most companies won't want to deal with public pressure or employee jealousy.
If you look at the wages of Norway for instance, they are almost all the same across the board over multiple industries.
You have effectively removed the wage gap, by making most people poorer. This doesn't sound like a good thing to me. Why can't we remove the age gap, by investing in education and helping people earn a better living? Why does it always have to involve taking money out of the pockets of everyone else?
Even if you are better or have more experience at a certain job, most companies won't want to deal with public pressure or employee jealousy.
If you look at the wages of Norway for instance, they are almost all the same across the board over multiple industries.
You have effectively removed the wage gap, by making most people poorer. This doesn't sound like a good thing to me. Why can't we remove the age gap, by investing in education and helping people earn a better living? Why does it always have to involve taking money out of the pockets of everyone else?
One perspective to promote - everyone should have the option of making their tax records and ranking as a taxpayer made public officially (ie, how many people paid more actual dollars in tax in a given tax year).
Most of the tax take is from a very small percentage of people. They deserve more persistent and public recognition of the disproportionate contribution they make.
There are great arguments for keeping tax records private, but it would be a nice respectful idea to have a bit more public recognition and thanks directed towards major taxpayers.
Most of the tax take is from a very small percentage of people. They deserve more persistent and public recognition of the disproportionate contribution they make.
There are great arguments for keeping tax records private, but it would be a nice respectful idea to have a bit more public recognition and thanks directed towards major taxpayers.
Also an indication of whether they are a net contributor or not. I’ve heard so many complaints about welfare scroungers from people who are almost certainly not contributors.
I've also spent some time around and known people like this. I suspect the cognitive dissonance those people experience wouldn't allow them to admit the truth of the matter even if it was on paper in front of them.
In the US, the top 10% pay about half of all taxes, and also have about half of all income. How is that disproportionate and why should we be thankful for people just for pulling their own weight?
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
Top 10% share of total AGI: 46.56%
Top 10% share of total income taxes paid: 69.47%
I don’t think nearly 70% is “about half”.
Top 10% share of total AGI: 46.56%
Top 10% share of total income taxes paid: 69.47%
I don’t think nearly 70% is “about half”.
I don’t think the federal income tax is the only tax that exists.
Here is a source that looks at all taxes: https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf
Here is a source that looks at all taxes: https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf
> the top 10% pay about half of all taxes ... How is that disproportionate ... ?
I'm not trying to be nasty here, but something in your question is off. My answer is obvious - 10% handling 50% of the taxes implies the 10% are contributing 9 times as much as everyone else since (50 / 10) is 9x (50 / 90).
> why should we be thankful for people just for pulling their own weight?
If contributing 9x as much as everyone else is pulling their own weight, what exactly are we supposed to think about the average person? I happen to think the average person is pulling their own weight, and that the 10% are probably pulling 8 other people along.
I'm going to guess you are struggling to put your opinion into words - maybe you think that because paying taxes is involuntary it should be taken for granted.
That is exactly the type of attitude that makes me say taxpayers deserve a bit more recognition - firstly a group of people have been identified as highly productive, secondly they have been made to contribute to broader society. So far so good, they can complain a lot about that state of affairs and get ignored if they want.
However to then turn around and say they are 'only' pulling their weight and should be taken for granted is actually mean spirited. Even if you think the rich should be paying more tax than they are now, they still deserve recognition for being the primary dynamo behind everything the government does. To say nothing of the average taxpayer who also deserves a bit of respect for making a contribution. It isn't that easy to be in a position to pay taxes, it takes hard work.
I'm not trying to be nasty here, but something in your question is off. My answer is obvious - 10% handling 50% of the taxes implies the 10% are contributing 9 times as much as everyone else since (50 / 10) is 9x (50 / 90).
> why should we be thankful for people just for pulling their own weight?
If contributing 9x as much as everyone else is pulling their own weight, what exactly are we supposed to think about the average person? I happen to think the average person is pulling their own weight, and that the 10% are probably pulling 8 other people along.
I'm going to guess you are struggling to put your opinion into words - maybe you think that because paying taxes is involuntary it should be taken for granted.
That is exactly the type of attitude that makes me say taxpayers deserve a bit more recognition - firstly a group of people have been identified as highly productive, secondly they have been made to contribute to broader society. So far so good, they can complain a lot about that state of affairs and get ignored if they want.
However to then turn around and say they are 'only' pulling their weight and should be taken for granted is actually mean spirited. Even if you think the rich should be paying more tax than they are now, they still deserve recognition for being the primary dynamo behind everything the government does. To say nothing of the average taxpayer who also deserves a bit of respect for making a contribution. It isn't that easy to be in a position to pay taxes, it takes hard work.
“I'm going to guess you are struggling to put your opinion into words”
That seem rather unkind. I’m going to guess this conversation is not worth continuing.
That seem rather unkind. I’m going to guess this conversation is not worth continuing.
If you ignore that comment, which I think was meant kindly but was not necessary, you are left with some good points to respond to.
I think those points are correct, but if not how about responding to me instead with any clear rebuttal?
I think those points are correct, but if not how about responding to me instead with any clear rebuttal?
If we're talking about proportionate contributions, the most-contributing taxpayers are the very poor, not the very rich. They pay a considerably larger share of their income in all taxes than the wealthy do.
In practice I guess that most people would not choose to make their information public; but you could encourage it by offering a refund/rebate/lower-rate to those who did?
Like in Sweden?
"The country grants citizens the ability to request anyone else's tax returns with just one phone call. The only catch: The person whose returns you request will know it was you."
https://www.businessinsider.de/sweden-salaries-freely-availa...
"The country grants citizens the ability to request anyone else's tax returns with just one phone call. The only catch: The person whose returns you request will know it was you."
https://www.businessinsider.de/sweden-salaries-freely-availa...
This is dumb. This would give potential employers too much leverage in salary negotiations.
Candidates would also have more information. They would have information about current employees and they could compare against their coworkers after they join.
Why does it work in Norway? It is among the list of the highest GDP per capita in the world. Norway rank 6, US rank 10. (IMF)
In Norway the names of those who checked your taxes is logged and displayed to you, so bosses checking their employees' taxes wouldn't be the wisest move - it would look really weird.
You can of course get semi-anonymity by paying someone else to perform the search for you, but it's not really done much. Companies are generally nicer in Norway anyway, likely due to our lack of minimum wage, CLAs and tripartite cooperation model.
You can of course get semi-anonymity by paying someone else to perform the search for you, but it's not really done much. Companies are generally nicer in Norway anyway, likely due to our lack of minimum wage, CLAs and tripartite cooperation model.
Maybe it's this, but there is also a fair amount of oil in Norway.
From wikipedia [1]:
The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product (GDP).On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside of the Middle East.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
From wikipedia [1]:
The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product (GDP).On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside of the Middle East.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
Your argument does not apply that this would give potential employers too much leverage in salary negotiations or can you explain?
Ah, I though you were suggesting that the GDP per capita in Norway was high because of tax transparency.
Now I realize that you were probably just saying that Norway and US are comparable in terms of GDP per capita. Am I correct?
Now I realize that you were probably just saying that Norway and US are comparable in terms of GDP per capita. Am I correct?
You can replace Norway with Iceland if you'd like. No oil there.
jlawson(1)
My guess: very small income gap.
But how was that very small gap created? Maybe such kind of policies played a role?
Decent managing of oil resources defnitely played a role there. Also, Norway is a small and still pretty homogenous country. They probably feel at least in some level that they are in the same boat together, something that is hard to achieve when you just (almost) randomly mix millions of people from all over the world like in the U.S.
Gini Coefficient for Norway and the US:
US: 18.5 Norway: 6.5
The ratio of the average income of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%
US: 18.5 Norway: 6.5
The ratio of the average income of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%
Employees too, though - you’d know how much they were paying people in the same role.
Employers already have way too much leverage. This would give employers a bit more info, and employees a lot more info, which should level the playing field considerably.
I agree.
More states are implementing laws so prospective employers cannot ask or base a salary offer on prior wages. This should positively effect gender and racial inequality at least during hiring. This would render all that protection moot.
More states are implementing laws so prospective employers cannot ask or base a salary offer on prior wages. This should positively effect gender and racial inequality at least during hiring. This would render all that protection moot.
This would make it a much shorter step to collective bargaining, which would increase the power the employees have in negotiations.
I wonder what effect this would have on wages. It might create upward pressure, in that people could see when they were paid less for a similar position as a colleague and seek an increase, but it might also create downwards pressure as management were more reluctant to give anybody a raise given that it might cause other employees to demand one too. Seems like it would be good for small startups, as most employees would have different titles and hence no reason to expect similar compensation.
> but it might also create downwards pressure as management were more reluctant to give anybody a raise given that it might cause other employees to demand one too
Maybe. Unless, of course, management's income is absurdly high compared to that of their hires and then the hires decide to unionize in retaliation leading to again upward pressure. And if management's income isn't absurdly higher, then there's no real problem with the scenario because now everyone's being compensated fairly.
Maybe. Unless, of course, management's income is absurdly high compared to that of their hires and then the hires decide to unionize in retaliation leading to again upward pressure. And if management's income isn't absurdly higher, then there's no real problem with the scenario because now everyone's being compensated fairly.
I think this would be good. The upside is that society becomes more transparent - you could see how your peers or neighbors are "keeping up with the joneses." You could know exactly how much the people at firms you interview with make. Situations where there is even transparency tend to be more fair.
The downside, of course, is that this makes it even more difficult to participate in the informal (unreported) economy. To some people that would be an advantage, but I think it's a downside. Surveillance pushes people towards appearing normal and normal, in this case, would be keeping all your money on the books. However, this seems like the lesser of two evils compared to the rampant inequality we face.
The downside, of course, is that this makes it even more difficult to participate in the informal (unreported) economy. To some people that would be an advantage, but I think it's a downside. Surveillance pushes people towards appearing normal and normal, in this case, would be keeping all your money on the books. However, this seems like the lesser of two evils compared to the rampant inequality we face.
I’m sorry, but I disagree that Income Taxes should be a thing already. The idea that how much I make should be public sounds ludicrous.
What possible value will that add to me? What possible value will knowing how much your neighbor make help you?
The only thing I see it helps with is attempting to bring down people above yourself. Which IMO is not the point of a society. It should provide safety, to everyone, and be as unobtrusive as possible, in doing so.
You can already FOIA request and get all the anonymized data you want on this. So I don’t understand.
What possible value will that add to me? What possible value will knowing how much your neighbor make help you?
The only thing I see it helps with is attempting to bring down people above yourself. Which IMO is not the point of a society. It should provide safety, to everyone, and be as unobtrusive as possible, in doing so.
You can already FOIA request and get all the anonymized data you want on this. So I don’t understand.
As a state employee, my salary is published for all to see.
https://illinoiscomptroller.gov/financial-data/state-expendi...
https://illinoiscomptroller.gov/financial-data/state-expendi...
Yes, because tour state salary is unambiguous: everyone same grade as you gets the same amount. I don’t want a coworker to be upset with me because they accepted a low-ball offer while I negotiated 5k on top of base.
Also does that info include your income from other sources like dividends or a hobby? If not, then it’s nowhere bear comparable to what’s being proposed.
Also does that info include your income from other sources like dividends or a hobby? If not, then it’s nowhere bear comparable to what’s being proposed.
Why couldn’t it be used to lift people up, rather than pull them down?
to consider the opposing side, you cannot use the FOIA to get tax returns
https://reason.com/2018/12/19/you-cant-use-foia-to-get-someo...
https://reason.com/2018/12/19/you-cant-use-foia-to-get-someo...
Which I personally think is a good thing! I also can’t FOIA request your medical or education records.
I can however FOIA request medical claims for a region. Thus keeping the data anonymous
I can however FOIA request medical claims for a region. Thus keeping the data anonymous
I imagine there'd be web apps with "realtime" maps of your neighborhoods... imagine the consequences.
Zillow already exists. This information might incentivize individuals making much higher than the average reported income in an area to relocate or increase their security in the short term but burglaries usually go down with income inequality.
Disclosure of tax payments would make it easier to hold politicians accountable. It also would help to reduce fraud and economic inequality.
I can see a case being made for full-disclosure for politicians, but the case for private individuals is harder. If the goal is to hold politicians accountable, why should i other who who are not politicians disclose?
I can see a case being made for full-disclosure for politicians, but the case for private individuals is harder. If the goal is to hold politicians accountable, why should i other who who are not politicians disclose?
Even if you require all politicians to publish their tax returns, it wouldn't really be "holding politicians accountable." They have become more sophisticated in their pay offs and much of the graft flows to their children rather themselves. See Secret Empires by Peter Schweizer for a recent book diving into how this now works.
Why should you be any different from politicians? Did you think it’s only politicians who fiddle their taxes?
they are public servants who have a lot more influence than average individuals.
fiddle their taxes
Isn't that the job of the IRS to determine
fiddle their taxes
Isn't that the job of the IRS to determine
First, what is the goal of making all income taxes public? If the goal is really about having the ability to scrutinize selective individuals with money or power, then an across the board demand like this may be over-solving the problem. If the goal is about something else, then there should be more investigation and evidence to support the reasoning.
Why is it important that everyone’s income taxes are public?
For the average American, what benefit or detriment does having their income taxes publicly accessible serve?
There’s many ways it could make life worse for those that are not: rich, politicians, or executives. It’s also a great way for the “ultra rich” to pit the “lower classes” against each other. If people knew their friends’, coworkers’, and family’s income taxes, then it’s an invitation for drama, jealousy, and fighting. Everyone would be comparing themselves against everyone else - like what happens on social media, except with more important monetary figures instead of imaginary internet points. In my opinion, that would further divide people rather than unify them.
If someone is a politician, a civil servant representative of the people, then their income taxes should be public as a gesture of government transparency. If people voted someone into office, they have a right to know about who is going to be representing them (at least in my opinion). Many government workers’ salaries are already public information, but it’s easier to be getting much more money from non-salary places the higher up (or the more high profile) someone in the government is. That’s what the real value of seeing their income tax is.
The same income tax transparency should, potentially, also be the case for anyone paid using the public’s tax dollars to deter corruption, kickbacks, and behavior not fitting the public interest.
For the non-wealthy or non-government individuals, what is gained by knowing the income taxes of some random person reporting $50k/yr? Even if someone reported $100+k/yr income, depending on where they live and what their expenses are it doesn’t guarantee they have a lot of cash on hand or valuable convertible assets. If anything, it gives scammers and thieves more ability to assess people’s refunds and try to steal them (as currently happens). In that sense, there isn’t much public benefit being gained for most individuals.
Why is it important that everyone’s income taxes are public?
For the average American, what benefit or detriment does having their income taxes publicly accessible serve?
There’s many ways it could make life worse for those that are not: rich, politicians, or executives. It’s also a great way for the “ultra rich” to pit the “lower classes” against each other. If people knew their friends’, coworkers’, and family’s income taxes, then it’s an invitation for drama, jealousy, and fighting. Everyone would be comparing themselves against everyone else - like what happens on social media, except with more important monetary figures instead of imaginary internet points. In my opinion, that would further divide people rather than unify them.
If someone is a politician, a civil servant representative of the people, then their income taxes should be public as a gesture of government transparency. If people voted someone into office, they have a right to know about who is going to be representing them (at least in my opinion). Many government workers’ salaries are already public information, but it’s easier to be getting much more money from non-salary places the higher up (or the more high profile) someone in the government is. That’s what the real value of seeing their income tax is.
The same income tax transparency should, potentially, also be the case for anyone paid using the public’s tax dollars to deter corruption, kickbacks, and behavior not fitting the public interest.
For the non-wealthy or non-government individuals, what is gained by knowing the income taxes of some random person reporting $50k/yr? Even if someone reported $100+k/yr income, depending on where they live and what their expenses are it doesn’t guarantee they have a lot of cash on hand or valuable convertible assets. If anything, it gives scammers and thieves more ability to assess people’s refunds and try to steal them (as currently happens). In that sense, there isn’t much public benefit being gained for most individuals.
The government should keep no secrets beyond those absolutely necessary to ensure national security. Knowing how much each person pays in taxes is not a national security concern, so it stands to reason it should be public.
Interesting. Do you think the government should disclose the names of rape victims?
Yes? Unless the victim is living under a new identity or similair, the victim's name should be in the court records which should be available to the public.
I don’t know that I want all my stuff public, it potentially changes relationships with coworkers, neighbors and friends. On the other hand, if things were kind of anonymized you could look at the tax strategies others use. I don’t know about you all, but we save, we give to our church and other charities, we invest, we are both frugal and comfortable and then we do our taxes and its demoralizing. I can’t help but think there is some big trick we and our accountant don’t know or are too honest to use or something.
The way I see it this would give employees too little room in pay difference. On paper there is often very little difference between a good employee and a toxic employee. Some of the worst people are technically the most productive but hurt others productivity in ways that are hard to document and aren't directly punishable. Their managers certainly feel it, and know they are not worth as much to the company as the employee who produces less but is generally a positive to the office environment.
You fire the toxic employee and promote/give the other employee a bonus. What is the issue here?
In India, all politicians have to make their income sources, cash in hand, investments, Income Tax ID, un-movable assets, etc in a public affidavit to Election Commission of India.
If a certain US politician were hiding university grades (instead of income tax returns), then this article would be calling for the public disclosure of university grades.
If you stop to think-- really think-- about all the ideas that are springing out of the ground in opposition to one political candidate, you would see how crazy things have become. The electoral college, the number of seats on SCOTUS, etc. etc. It's wild.
Luckily, sanity will prevail.
If you stop to think-- really think-- about all the ideas that are springing out of the ground in opposition to one political candidate, you would see how crazy things have become. The electoral college, the number of seats on SCOTUS, etc. etc. It's wild.
Luckily, sanity will prevail.
I do not want extortionists and theives targeting me any more than they do
In the age of “we need to get our privacy back” someone is suggesting that an extremely personal thing that includes money is made public? Are you kidding me?
Did basic ethics just get lost along the way somewhere? Income is an interaction between me and another person. I'd bad enough the government wants a share. They do not have a right to publicize the details of every interaction/contract I make. I get you want Trump to give up his details, then make a law that the pres has to. Leave the rest of us, who are just trying to live our live and progress the world, out of it.
No thank you, I think it's bad enough that the government knows where I work and how much I make.
[deleted](1)
Absolutely not.
nkkollaw(1)
No, they shouldn't.
rpz(3)
If you want to ensure everyone pays what they owe then tax law should be sound (probably more simple than tax calculations are currently) and without loopholes.
The problem with the hypothesis here is that it suggests that public opinion be the arbiter of what is fair for a very individual level. In our age of social media indignation how could any individual get a fair shake? An angry populist sentiment can selectively cherry pick unpopular or polarizing figures to whatever ends they choose.
No thanks.
The problem with the hypothesis here is that it suggests that public opinion be the arbiter of what is fair for a very individual level. In our age of social media indignation how could any individual get a fair shake? An angry populist sentiment can selectively cherry pick unpopular or polarizing figures to whatever ends they choose.
No thanks.
Has nobody any real understanding of the nature and depth of organised crime? No, I do not want to have the IRS do all the work of promoting the juiciest targets to the top of the mafia's hit lists. This idea is nonsense.
Want to solve the tax-avoidance problem? Stop taxing income - tax spending. Jealousy over other peoples incomes, fairly or unfairly gained, will never result in a fair system for all, and this is the basis of income tax - whereas taxing people for spending will result in us all contributing taxes to society fairly.
Want to solve the tax-avoidance problem? Stop taxing income - tax spending. Jealousy over other peoples incomes, fairly or unfairly gained, will never result in a fair system for all, and this is the basis of income tax - whereas taxing people for spending will result in us all contributing taxes to society fairly.
> Jealousy over other peoples incomes
I think people downplay the seriousness of this issue. Instead looking inward "how can I make more money" many people look outward "why is so and so making more, they should make less". Is the population as a whole ready to live in a what is effectively a pro-sports environment and be reminded every day they are valued $X less than so and so.
Through experience of managing people who have made more than me I've learned that I'm ok with the information. But, people in general are super weird about money. I've seen other people be really bothered because someone made just a bit more than them without ever stopping to think why. I also have friends that I can have frank conversations about our salaries, but other friends who I have to avoid the conversation completely.
I think people downplay the seriousness of this issue. Instead looking inward "how can I make more money" many people look outward "why is so and so making more, they should make less". Is the population as a whole ready to live in a what is effectively a pro-sports environment and be reminded every day they are valued $X less than so and so.
Through experience of managing people who have made more than me I've learned that I'm ok with the information. But, people in general are super weird about money. I've seen other people be really bothered because someone made just a bit more than them without ever stopping to think why. I also have friends that I can have frank conversations about our salaries, but other friends who I have to avoid the conversation completely.
I wonder about cause and effect here. Would those attitudes persist in a world where everyone’s income is public information? Maybe people are weird about other people’s salaries because it’s so unusual to know what they are.
That's a good question, and it is probably some of getting used to something. It also means getting used to some answers people may not want to hear. When Timmy asks why Sue makes more money and their boss has to say that Sue is better than Timmy, that's going to be quite an ego blow.
In theory this should make everyone better, but practice is different. I used professional sports earlier because I think that is a good example. There is very little hiding there, and people know who is better for the most part.
Jiu Jitsu is a great example IMO because it's person vs. person. You can tell a lot about someones personality the first time to roll with someone. When they get beat (which they will - even by someone who is physically weaker), do they get mad or do they get excited to learn how it happened? The former never comes back because their ego will not allow it, and the later wants to learn how it was done.
In theory this should make everyone better, but practice is different. I used professional sports earlier because I think that is a good example. There is very little hiding there, and people know who is better for the most part.
Jiu Jitsu is a great example IMO because it's person vs. person. You can tell a lot about someones personality the first time to roll with someone. When they get beat (which they will - even by someone who is physically weaker), do they get mad or do they get excited to learn how it happened? The former never comes back because their ego will not allow it, and the later wants to learn how it was done.
If people had the right to choose whether they want to publish their income, this is one thing. Its a good thing to recognise those who choose this option.
For the fact of attitudes persisting, it is a matter of values. Values across the language-/culture- barrier gap, are equated, causatively in realtime by the people of the cultures, according to a near-infinite set of whim. Religions are a form of this whim, as are governments, and many, many other institutions, incapable also of crossing the language-/culture- barrier gap, settle on the easy way out: "dollar-*" value.
Alas, this is the nature of the materialist beast.
I'm quite okay with people knowing each others salaries, if they are expected to work with each other. No really successful group survives its internal secrecy liabilities, at least not for long, imho ..
+EDIT: cause/effect? I think it's both. Across a multitude of impinging factors.
For the fact of attitudes persisting, it is a matter of values. Values across the language-/culture- barrier gap, are equated, causatively in realtime by the people of the cultures, according to a near-infinite set of whim. Religions are a form of this whim, as are governments, and many, many other institutions, incapable also of crossing the language-/culture- barrier gap, settle on the easy way out: "dollar-*" value.
Alas, this is the nature of the materialist beast.
I'm quite okay with people knowing each others salaries, if they are expected to work with each other. No really successful group survives its internal secrecy liabilities, at least not for long, imho ..
+EDIT: cause/effect? I think it's both. Across a multitude of impinging factors.
I’m a stealth rich person, a public outing would require me to move to a wealthy ghetto for my safety. I would lament the extra expense and the plights of the poor and middle class will be further away.
> This idea is nonsense.
You have a valid point. But, this system works in other countries. People is able to ask for other citizens taxes. But, the person "investigated" gets a notification of whom asked fir its tax returns.
> Stop taxing income - tax spending.
This makes very easy to accumulate wealth and it is difficult to apply progressive taxing.
> Jealousy over other peoples incomes, fairly or unfairly gained, will never result in a fair system for all
Capitalism is based in information. Without information citizens cannot take good decisions. And that is why there is people earning very low salaries for the same jobs that others are getting a good pay.
I personally do not think that jealousy plays a role here. I know that my boss makes more money that me. That may cause jealousy. If my college does the same job that me (or worse) and I get paid less I can leave for another company. If another company pays more than mine, I can leave. If I am very good paid, I will appreciate it more as I know the market.
To hide salaries is as reasonable as to hide product prices. It will break the system.
You have a valid point. But, this system works in other countries. People is able to ask for other citizens taxes. But, the person "investigated" gets a notification of whom asked fir its tax returns.
> Stop taxing income - tax spending.
This makes very easy to accumulate wealth and it is difficult to apply progressive taxing.
> Jealousy over other peoples incomes, fairly or unfairly gained, will never result in a fair system for all
Capitalism is based in information. Without information citizens cannot take good decisions. And that is why there is people earning very low salaries for the same jobs that others are getting a good pay.
I personally do not think that jealousy plays a role here. I know that my boss makes more money that me. That may cause jealousy. If my college does the same job that me (or worse) and I get paid less I can leave for another company. If another company pays more than mine, I can leave. If I am very good paid, I will appreciate it more as I know the market.
To hide salaries is as reasonable as to hide product prices. It will break the system.
People like to think they’re equal in ability even when they’re not. In theory explaining to someone that their performance is lower may open the door to help them improve so they too can make more money in the ‘same’ job. This presupposes that they’re are rational, intelligent, and can handle bad news. If this were the case then they probably wouldn’t have been a poor performer to begin with.
> This presupposes that they’re are rational, intelligent, and can handle bad news.
Yes. People makes mistakes. But this is the same rationality to forbid democracy. And even in its imperfection it is a good system. Let people know and as a society we will learn how to use that information.
So, yes. Some people will want more money. But, the company still can say no to them if the rise they ask for is unreasonable.
Yes. People makes mistakes. But this is the same rationality to forbid democracy. And even in its imperfection it is a good system. Let people know and as a society we will learn how to use that information.
So, yes. Some people will want more money. But, the company still can say no to them if the rise they ask for is unreasonable.
> If my college does the same job that me (or worse) and I get paid less I can leave for another company. If another company pays more than mine, I can leave.
You're quite rational. Based on my experience, money is one of those things where emotions take over for many people. I agree it should work the way you want it to work, but I'm not sure it could in practice across the general population.
You're quite rational. Based on my experience, money is one of those things where emotions take over for many people. I agree it should work the way you want it to work, but I'm not sure it could in practice across the general population.
[deleted]
1. People kidnap your child, knowing you can pay ransom.
2. People jump in front of your car, knowing you can pay when sued.
3. People break into your house, knowing you have things worth stealing.
4. People hack into your private photos, knowing you can pay blackmail.
Anonymity is the most important defense against the evils of man. They don't hurt you now, because they don't _know_ to hurt you.
The government provides no bodyguards. The police investigates only after the crime. Anonymity is the most important defense. Don't take it away.