So throw a couple extra bones to the poors and maybe the race thing will solve itself? Why tax the fucking rich? Academics and politicians need to change the message to simply that: tax the rich. You can't fix one extreme without addressing the opposite extreme, in this case. Tax the rich and less tax for the poor (everyone else).
I don't know how it works in the US but in the EU the working class pay a lot more tax, proportionally, than the rich:
In Spain if you work and you cost your company 26430 euros:
- The company pays 6430 for social security (calculated as a % of your salary, so this is effectively your tax even if on paper it's the company that pays it.)
- You pay 1270 for social security (on paper you pay it but the company gives it to the tax office directly)
- You pay 2338 for income tax (on paper you pay it but the company gives most of it to the tax office directly)
- You end up getting 16390 euros, or an effective tax rate of 38%.
This goes up if you pick a higher salary, obviously. If you work and you cost your company 67000 euros:
- The company pays 16300 for social security
- You pay 3101 for social security
- You pay 11582
- You end up getting 36016 euros, or an effective tax rate of 46%.
If you're a freelancer and you work for yourself it's more or less the same but there's also a fixed tax that while not being very high it's hard to deal with when you're earning 0 when starting out. In practice most people just risk it and don't report their activity at first for this reason.
But if you're truly rich, you don't work, you have assets that appreciate for you. Tax rate for capital gains is capped at 26% no matter how many millions you're earning.
This does not take into account that as a rich person you're going to be spending less of the money you earn than a poor person so you're paying less VAT (sales tax) as well.
> The company pays 6430 for social security (calculated as a % of your salary, so this is effectively your tax even if on paper it's the company that pays it.)> - You pay 1270 for social security (on paper you pay it but the company gives it to the tax office directly)
A contribution towards your pension is not a tax. It's a deferred payment. You will get that money later, with interest.
> Tax rate for capital gains is capped at 26% no matter how many millions you're earning.
Capital gains taxes charge you for the nominal increase in the value of the assets you sell, which means that you pay taxes for inflation. For example, if you bought an asset for 100EUR and sell it one year later for 103EUR, you will pay a capital gains tax on that 3EUR difference, even though you may not have actually obtained any benefit if inflation was 3% that year, so you are actually worse off than you were.
> But if you're truly rich, you don't work, you have assets that appreciate for you
You will pay taxes if they appreciate, but you won't get your money back when they depreciate. You are taking a risk.
> This does not take into account that as a rich person you're going to be spending less of the money you earn than a poor person so you're paying less VAT (sales tax) as well
If two people buy the same asset for the same price, they both pay the same amount in VAT. If the rich person ends up buying more stuff, they pay more VAT than the poor person.
And at the end of the day, most of the income taxes obtained by the government are paid by the upper quintile of the population. Which is to say, the working class enjoys social services they can't afford thanks to a small percentage of the population that pays on their behalf.
Not only that, Spain is one of the few countries in the world with a wealth tax, which starts once you reach 700k EUR, so it's not exactly taxing billionaires, either.
> A contribution towards your pension is not a tax. It's a deferred payment. You will get that money later, with interest.
That's quite a naive take. European public pension systems don't work like that. The money is not invested, it is spent immediately to pay pensions to those who have already reached retirement age. What you get is a promise that some day you'll also get paid pension. But there's no guarantee that this will happen, since, as I said, this money is not invested, or set aside in a vault, it's spent immediately. And given current demographic trends you have very slim chance of ever seeing that money again.
> European public pension systems don't work like that
People should have voted for a better system, then. In Spain I've heard the same people complain about the unsustainability of the pension system while also complaining about the "Austrian backpack" approach, which is one way to address that problem.
Personally, I would prefer something like every person born in the same year contribute to the same pension fund, to be invested and redistributed as they turn 65, sort of like a mandatory annuity. It would avoid introducing these sort of inter-generational tensions.
> And given current demographic trends you have very slim chance of ever seeing that money again
That can be solved via immigration. People may not like the solution, but it is available to them, should they choose it.
People complaining about the current social security ”demise”, and people claiming that the Austrian backpack is the solution, are the same, i.e. people who believe that individualized plans are preferable to socialized ones, but fail to understand that it creates more disparity, and less security.
The Austrian backpack is extremely beneficial to large companies, thus is of no surprise that it gets touted in the news from time to time.
They don’t talk that much about its biggest drawback: in a market where wages are already low and talent is rarely valued, it would make firing people so cheap, companies wouldn’t really have any incentive to keep highly paid employees, even if they are excellent performers.
>People should have voted for a better system, then. In Spain I've heard the same people complain about the unsustainability of the pension system while also complaining about the "Austrian backpack" approach, which is one way to address that problem.
Spain is a... pathologically left-wing country, I would say. That indicates, among other things, a profound lack of knowledge of economics, which explains what you say (and some other stuff).
>That can be solved via immigration. People may not like the solution, but it is available to them, should they choose it.
Spain's youth unemployment rate is at around 28% right now. As long as there is a single unemployed Spanish person, especially young people, we shouldn't be accepting any more immigrants.
> Spain's youth unemployment rate is at around 28% right now. As long as there is a single unemployed Spanish person, especially young people, we shouldn't be accepting any more immigrants.
You can expect commenters on HN to interpret this as racism, but actually, it is just a simple logic: First you need to fix the economy so that it can create jobs, then you invite potential workers to immigrate.
Take Poland as an example of this: they way are ahead of Spain on "demographic collapse" curve, but also have a blooming economy - unemployment rate is one of the lowest in EU at 2.7 percent. Two millions of Ukrainian refugees came in there in the past year, and you know what? Most of them found jobs.
> That indicates, among other things, a profound lack of knowledge of economics
The assumption here is that economies led by right wing governments are more successful, which is hilariously untrue.
Having strong social protections and higher taxes does correlate with higher living standards, though. No social protections and no taxes correlate mostly with failed countries, so there is that.
The top 1 percent’s share of federal income taxes paid rose from 38.8 percent to 42.3 percent in 2023.
The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.
The poor pay taxes through sales and payroll taxes, so it’s not just income tax, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that it represents a larger share of their income than it does to rich people.
Most billionaires don’t even earn money from a salary, but instead from lower taxed capital gains.
But reducing the argument to rich vs.
poor also misses out how unfair the tax system is to the middle class of wage earners in the US.
Lol no. Poor heads of households pay less income taxes, but regressive taxes always target them. Hell, most states even extract fees from benefit payments!
Why? You can easily compel compliance and there are millions more poor people tha. rich people. The way laws are structured today, the marginal dollar costs a lot to extract from a billionaire.
Define poor. I would call poor anything less than a 11 figure income so the definition of poor is subjective in and of itself. The relative difference in wealth should not so great so throwing a bone to the poors is only using a band-aid to triage a gaping wound that has been bleeding for a very long time. When I say "tax the rich" I am not talking about using current our current tax system. Whaty I am really saying is "make the people who exploit others pay for the exploitation." Watching rich get richer while poors get poorer is sickening and defending the rich is also sickening to hear.
I think it varies. I’m not adding more details than the sibling comments, but due to the complexities of tax reduction, it’s more accessible to the rich to recover a greater percentage of their income via accounting tricks or unique investments, than people who are filing simple tax forms and investing in simple registered accounts.
Difference in scale being a difference in kind. More money is easier to shelter if it has a legal origin.
Yes and no. The “poor” may very little to no income tax. But the poor pay sales tax on almost everything they buy and that’s a flat 7-12% and so is really regressive. Although this is skipped for items paid for with government food assistance (eg, SNAP).
And if you’re working poor (ie making $20k/year) you’re paying 7.5% in payroll taxes to cover social security and Medicare. This is also flat and so regressive.
You certainly pay less percentage and less absolute taxes than the rich, but it’s still something.
The challenge is that it’s hard to reduce these taxes any lower. Unless you want to change social security to a straight income redistribution program and not the pretend pension it is now and do something like the first $50k isn’t taxed and 10x the taxes on people from 50-200k (currently only 0-168k is taxed but almost half of people only make 50k so taking off the bottom drastically reduces tax revenue).
Or you could remove sales tax on people who make less than $20k but that’s hard to monitor properly and rebates don’t help much with day to day needs.
>the poor pay sales tax on almost everything they buy . . . Although this is skipped for items paid for with government food assistance (eg, SNAP).
That is technically correct, but misleading, because even when it is not paid for by government food assistance, the sale of food is not taxed--at least, it is not in any of the 4 US states I've lived in.
Lots of food in my state is taxed. I’m not sure how they determine what is taxed and isn’t as the cashier does it all for you automatically. But I think things like fruit and diapers are not taxed, but processed foods are.
But I think the important part is that poor people spend a larger percent of their income on things with sales tax than wealthy so sales tax impacts them more significantly. Thats what I meant t saying it’s regressive [0].
Are you sure the basic rule isn't that if the food it is intended to be consumed at the seller's place of business, it is taxed? That's how it works in California. (As an exception, carbonated beverages are taxed.)
Specifically, food from the "hot bar" in a supermarket is taxable, whereas a can of ravioli for instance, is not taxable even though it is a processed food by almost anyone's definition.
I just looked it up and groceries are a lower rate (1% instead of 4%) from the state but there are local sales taxes of 2-5% depending on city and county.
Prepared food like the food bar is full sales tax.
They do, and it's progressive, but the trick is so do the rich because they make all their money on capital gains and that's a lower rate. It's really the middle class to honest small business owner level that gets hosed on income taxes, make enough money to pay a good bit of taxes but not enough to have exotic tax shelters and the really creative accountants.
These tools blabbering about “tax the rich” don’t have real jobs, assets, or a brain. The only thing the political class will be OK with doing is raising taxes on the middle - and that’s it. People who call for higher taxes with our two party system are my enemy. They can eff off.
And raising capital gains taxes? What so they can screw over the middle again when they retire and have to intermittently sell off? It’s absurd.
95% of people are astoundingly ignorant of how our tax system actually works. Once you get into a moderately advanced investment/tax strategy and start looking into forming an S Corp, tax advantaged accounts, etc. you realize how the rich really avoid taxes.
"Tax the rich" only gets politicians to move around the income brackets and punish high-earning, honest professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Numbskulls who have never even filed a 1040 can't comprehend that the mega rich do not derive the majority of their wealth from income.
We should simplify our tax system to eliminate sophisticated tax strategies and level the playing field. Income tax should be reduced overall.
Income tax should be abolished completely, since it is immoral. Government should derive their tax income from taxing corporations. And the best way to avoid any "tax optimization" schemes is to tax revenue, not profit. You run a business? 1-5% of your revenue goes to IRS, and you can do whatever you want with the rest. This would also have a nice side effect of reducing cost of accounting services since without tax avoidance schemes 90% of accounting work goes away.
This sounds actually quite possible but wouldn't this also eliminate the need for having a scrum master and/or product manager? All those SM/PO people would have to find a new job and then, on top of that, the entire sector of businesses selling scrum master certifications for $250 (or whatever they go for this year) could also potentially go belly up, too.
I really like this idea!
Yes, product owners will always be needed. It's a full-stack skill set in itself to be a product owner (biz ops is a real thing, project management, product discovery, business management, finance, risk, security). So many areas that if a dev wanted to do those things...they'd have to learn how to be a product owner. It's a lot and it's hard.
This automation will help product owners be more powerful and effective. It will also unblock devs by streamlining live comms so that they're either desirable communications or streamlined into automation, freeing up more physical time for development, discussions with business, discussions with each other, or just shaving off half a Friday of meetings and moving to a 4-4.5 day work-week in most shops.
This seems to be a lost author looking at socialist media platforms, not capitalistic social media. Things that actually have a cost should not necessarily be provided for free, even if one does not understand said cost (such as the author of this story). Providing an API is an add-on and not actually required of any social media platform but it does cost money to maintain the storage of the content as well as to not just build said API but also to maintain it (including keeping it secure and scalable). This author seems to be thinking of some kind of socialist media platforms, not the current capitalist social media platforms we have now. Even so, I would definitely welcome the idea of socialistic media platforms although I am not even sure how one could be built and/or managed.
This sounds about the same as "McDonald's should be free" and I don't really see a big difference other than the actual consumption of said good/service.
Seriously? Social creatures? That BS again? Not all of us are. Don't be so shortsighted. I don't need nor do I want any added socialization. Spare me any water cooler talk, overheard gossip, and any anecdotal opinion on the weather because I really, really don't care. I would much rather do what I am hired to do. When I want to socialize, I'll do that on my own time and on my own terms without being forced or coerced into something that is "good for everyone" even when it clearly is not. I am NOT a social creature and I am NOT the only one.
My name would be a moot point considering your company likely couldn't afford to hire me. It is also likely that if I met someone like you during the intervieww process that I would end the interview. I have better things to do.
"Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them."
What has Google really built? Seems to me they try, fail ,and then buy something when their attempts fail (when something is available to buy). Nest? Android? Google is not innovative and they never really were, nor are they actually capable of building any viable new products.
i laughed out loud browsing https://about.google/intl/en_us/products/ as a result of your comment, and the first random one i clicked on (cloud print) has a big banner at the top saying it was discontinued in 2020.
a second laugh when I went to the "migration options" link and it says
"We recommend that you find another way to meet your printing needs."
Bottom line: SoC doesn't always mean you need to use microservices. I have worked with people that think that SoC IS microservices architecture but it is just one possible, not always practical, solution. In my experience with these kinds of people, they also tend to be the ones that overuse things like the DRY principal.
So don't use the database for what it is intended because...it might be harder? I very much disagree with this article. It is not so simple to just declare no business logic in the DB when the DB schema itself IS a BIG part of the business logic. When working with data, the best place to work with the data is where it is stored, not pulled out and put back in.
And your app is more likely to be replaced long before the data and/or database is.
Stop treating the database like a black box and use it for what it is intended.
I think the problem here is one of total disregard of any performance issues.
To me this is the kind of people who only write SQL through ORM, suffers constantly from the N+1 problem, and say that RDMS are slow compared to key/value stores.
I wonder how good can ChatGPT become for SQL and if it can replace these people xD
You missed the word maintain and is a very important point. If I can only maintain the data through an app and not directly in the database then the database is nothing more than a card file. Why not use the database features it was intended to provide? The app will be gone long before the data. Always. The next app will need to reproduce the previous apps logic. What if that was already done? It is better to have a mixz used judiciously, than to just consider the database only for storing and retrieving of data. What a wate of resources to not use those things!
Data integrity is maintained through FK, unique indexes, proper modeling, etc.
Also, an RMDBS is hard to scale horizontally, so the more CPU tasks you put on it, the sooner you will hit a bottleneck that is not easy to get out of. A application layer, if designed properly can scale a lot more.
>The app will be gone long before the data.
When this ever happens, it happens rarely, and the situation is the data enters a read-only state in my experience and happens during sunsetting. Most of the time, if a new system is required, a migration occurs to a new schema that the new app supports.
We use a mix of SQL and NoSQL databases for different and specific purposes. Your suggestion is to do the data manipulation outside of the database which typically means pulling data sets out, doing something with them, and then putting them back in. That will never be more efficient than just doing it in the database.
Our SQL databases are actually scaled horizontally using read replicas since writes are much less frequent than reads and we can easily add/remove instances as demand grows and shrinks. IMO, it wasn't any more difficult to scale out our databases than it would have been to implement any other K8 (application or DB).
> Your suggestion is to do the data manipulation outside of the database which typically means pulling data sets out, doing something with them, and then putting them back in.
It doesn't mean that at all. You can still leverage SQL to get amazing performance for queries and mutations across large datasets without burying that in a stored procedure. Yes it's generally a bad idea to pull thousands of records across the network and into memory to manipulate them before putting them back. But that's a false dichotomy.
