Taxes: A Public Record -- Pro and Con
April 17, 2019 6:24 AM Subscribe
Everyone's Income Taxes Should Be Public - "Disclosure of tax payments would make it easier to hold politicians accountable. It also would help to reduce fraud and economic inequality." (via)
In October 1924, the federal government threw open for public inspection the files that recorded the incomes of American taxpayers, and the amounts they had paid in taxes.Your Tax Return Is None of My Business - "Should everybody (not just Trump) be required to file in public? Sure, if you want to widen inequality and nuke privacy."
Americans were gripped by a fever of interest in the finances of their neighbors. This newspaper devoted a large chunk of the front page to a list of the top taxpayers in Manhattan under a banner headline that read “J.D. Rockefeller Jr. Paid $7,435,169.” One story reported that a number of wives and ex-wives had lined up at a government office in New York to seek information about their present or former husbands. Journalists soon began to note the curious absence of some conspicuously wealthy people from the lists of top taxpayers.
Congress had ordered the disclosure as a weapon against tax fraud. “Secrecy is of the greatest aid to corruption,” said Senator Robert Howell of Nebraska. “The price of liberty is not only eternal vigilance, but also publicity.”
There is every reason to think that sunlight served the desired purpose. One important piece of evidence is that wealthy Americans absolutely hated the disclosure law, and soon persuaded Congress to execute a U-turn.
This idea has been suggested recently by Binyamin Appelbaum of The New York Times and also Matt Yglesias of Vox. In Norway it has been policy since 1814 and Finland does something similar.
I’m afraid, though, that universal tax transparency would boost U.S. economic inequality, take away second chances and devastate privacy... Evidence from Norway indicates that in 2007, 40 percent of Norwegian adults checked somebody’s tax information online, higher than the penetration of Facebook in Norway. Anonymity of the snooper was removed in 2014, and visits fell dramatically (88 percent by one measure), but still you can imagine paying others to snoop for you or the information eventually getting out over time.
The result of tax-record publication was that “this game of income comparisons negatively affected the well-being of poorer Norwegians while at the same time boosting the self-esteem of the rich,” according to Ricardo Perez-Truglia, a UCLA economics professor writing last week in VoxEU. There’s even a smartphone app that creates income leaderboards from the data on your Facebook friends.
Yep, this is same sort of nonsense as Brin's Transparent Society, and for much the same reason - the inequity of power means that the powerful have more to gain from access to this information than the dispossessed do. For positions of societal trust freely entered into, there is a solid rationale for making those individuals release their returns publicly - but for everyone else, the harms outweigh any benefit.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:31 AM on April 17, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:31 AM on April 17, 2019 [21 favorites]
So, the con argument basically boils down to "It makes poor people feel bad when they realize that they are poor"?
This.... does not feel like it's an argument being made in good faith.
I think I buy Cowen's argument about how it'd be bad for this to create an indelible permanent record of one's income. However, I feel like there's are already quite a lot of public data that already serves as a proxy for the same thing -- you can tell an awful lot about a person just by looking at their mailing address (or history thereof), and that information is already pretty easy to obtain if you're determined to get it.
On one hand, yes, it seems like this could instill jealousy and other petty behavior amongst low-income people. On the other, it would also shine a huge and hard-to-ignore spotlight on income inequalities faced by women and minorities.
posted by schmod at 6:38 AM on April 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
This.... does not feel like it's an argument being made in good faith.
I think I buy Cowen's argument about how it'd be bad for this to create an indelible permanent record of one's income. However, I feel like there's are already quite a lot of public data that already serves as a proxy for the same thing -- you can tell an awful lot about a person just by looking at their mailing address (or history thereof), and that information is already pretty easy to obtain if you're determined to get it.
On one hand, yes, it seems like this could instill jealousy and other petty behavior amongst low-income people. On the other, it would also shine a huge and hard-to-ignore spotlight on income inequalities faced by women and minorities.
posted by schmod at 6:38 AM on April 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I can imagine how much companies would love to know how much I've made -- and particularly how much I've settled for when unemployed vs. how much I've accepted to change jobs. "Oh, but you'd get to see what your co-workers make!", you say? Sure, if I can find a company directory, narrow down which "John Smith" has a job like the one I'm applying for, get John's tax returns, figure out when he started the job, see what other parts of his resume are like or unlike mine... and of course, I'm doing this for each job I apply for, because I have that kind of time.
Thanks, but no thanks.
posted by Etrigan at 6:38 AM on April 17, 2019 [20 favorites]
Thanks, but no thanks.
posted by Etrigan at 6:38 AM on April 17, 2019 [20 favorites]
Etrigan: "Yeah, I can imagine how much companies would love to know how much I've made"
Oh, they already know.
posted by schmod at 6:44 AM on April 17, 2019 [29 favorites]
Oh, they already know.
posted by schmod at 6:44 AM on April 17, 2019 [29 favorites]
So, the con argument basically boils down to "It makes poor people feel bad when they realize that they are poor"?
No, the argument is "tax returns contain a surprisingly large amount of metadata about the lives of people, information that is easily abused - hence why it should not be available publicly."
No, the argument is "tax returns contain a surprisingly large amount of metadata about the lives of people, information that is easily abused - hence why it should not be available publicly."
The general problem is this: Once the information about your earnings and possible tax deductions is public knowledge, the world can figure out a lot about the rest of your life, often to your disadvantage. Let’s say, for instance, that you just got out of prison — should that be commonly available public information? Well, those gaps in your earnings records are hard to explain otherwise. As it stands, we’re making good progress toward giving released prisoners second chances, and this could reverse the trend.posted by NoxAeternum at 6:46 AM on April 17, 2019 [26 favorites]
Similar problems would damage the interests of many people coming from other tough circumstances. Let’s say you’re a hard-working, scrappy and ambitious young person, but you never went to college and you haven’t yet had a high-paying job. With tax-record publication, it will be harder to pitch yourself as a quality hire with upside potential. Everyone can look and see that you haven’t been paid much in the past.
What about those receiving public assistance? Some would argue that they are fair game too, perhaps as a blocking measure. Regardless, the cost of running for office should be self-reporting one's taxes, as a credibility measure, but it seems that those who worship wealthy people may not want to know if their faith is misplaced.
posted by Brian B. at 6:50 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 6:50 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
What about those receiving public assistance? Some would argue that they are fair game too, perhaps as a blocking measure.
And those people would both be wrong and horrible. There's a vast difference between someone looking to assume a position of societal trust and someone seeking assistance from the government.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:53 AM on April 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
And those people would both be wrong and horrible. There's a vast difference between someone looking to assume a position of societal trust and someone seeking assistance from the government.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:53 AM on April 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
Well, it would certainly negate those "don't ask, don't tell" salary history laws.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on April 17, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on April 17, 2019 [7 favorites]
How about we make the make the following people's tax returns public:
- Anyone who runs for public office
- Anyone with an annual income, including salary, benefits and capital gains, of over $132,900 (that's the Social Security contribution cap; if you want to raise this number, raise the cap)
- Anyone who owns a business with 10 or more employees
Everyone else's taxes remain secret, because they're not handling enough money to matter.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:00 AM on April 17, 2019 [34 favorites]
- Anyone who runs for public office
- Anyone with an annual income, including salary, benefits and capital gains, of over $132,900 (that's the Social Security contribution cap; if you want to raise this number, raise the cap)
- Anyone who owns a business with 10 or more employees
Everyone else's taxes remain secret, because they're not handling enough money to matter.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:00 AM on April 17, 2019 [34 favorites]
Let’s say, for instance, that you just got out of prison — should that be commonly available public information?I feel like that information is already pretty public, and if we're concerned about it, there are a lot of currently-available records that we should make harder to get. I found out that someone I knew in elementary school was convicted of a drug offense, and it was trivially easy to find his incarceration status, what prison he was in, etc.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:01 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
The amount of personal information on a tax return is just too big and too sensitive. It would either require that almost all tax credits currently in place be stripped out, or it would be a privacy nightmare. In Canada at least this policy would mean: full disclosure of gender and marital status history, including spouse's name, and this is just on page 1. As you get into the return itself, there's a disability tax credit showing if you have a disability, or a disabled spouse, child, or partner.; then there's medical expenses tax credits, charitable donation deductions, an adoption expense credit, all of which represents information people have a legitimate desire to keep private.
Particularly if you have someone's full tax return, including their T slips (equivalent of US W forms) attachments and schedules, you have a pretty good picture of their life in the past year. Now you may think that being able to look at the returns of the rich and powerful is worth having a huge chunk of your confidential information exposed, fair enough.
However here's a useful thing to think about when analyzing policy: "How would the worst people on earth use this?"
To use some Metafilter examples, what do you suppose GamerGate could have done with Sarkeesian's tax returns; what could the Pizzagate mob do to left wing politicians; what could Facebook or Google do if they had all that raw data to feed into their algorithms; what could your worst enemy do to you.
One can take the position that I've got nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Or one may think that they could do more damage to your enemies with this tool than their enemies could do to them. Fine. I disagree.
The next part is this: The government has the ability to compel everyone to file a tax return. There are quite a few people who's job it is to see that this is done. The government also has the authority to decide what information is on the tax return.
Is it a good idea for the government to have the right to compel you to publicly disclose damn near anything about yourself?
posted by Grimgrin at 7:05 AM on April 17, 2019 [35 favorites]
Particularly if you have someone's full tax return, including their T slips (equivalent of US W forms) attachments and schedules, you have a pretty good picture of their life in the past year. Now you may think that being able to look at the returns of the rich and powerful is worth having a huge chunk of your confidential information exposed, fair enough.
However here's a useful thing to think about when analyzing policy: "How would the worst people on earth use this?"
To use some Metafilter examples, what do you suppose GamerGate could have done with Sarkeesian's tax returns; what could the Pizzagate mob do to left wing politicians; what could Facebook or Google do if they had all that raw data to feed into their algorithms; what could your worst enemy do to you.
One can take the position that I've got nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Or one may think that they could do more damage to your enemies with this tool than their enemies could do to them. Fine. I disagree.
The next part is this: The government has the ability to compel everyone to file a tax return. There are quite a few people who's job it is to see that this is done. The government also has the authority to decide what information is on the tax return.
Is it a good idea for the government to have the right to compel you to publicly disclose damn near anything about yourself?
posted by Grimgrin at 7:05 AM on April 17, 2019 [35 favorites]
On the other, it would also shine a huge and hard-to-ignore spotlight on income inequalities faced by women and minorities.
That hard-to-ignore information has been widespread, public knowledge for decades — the inequalities, while lessened, still exist because the white men are still in power.
posted by Celsius1414 at 7:08 AM on April 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
That hard-to-ignore information has been widespread, public knowledge for decades — the inequalities, while lessened, still exist because the white men are still in power.
posted by Celsius1414 at 7:08 AM on April 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
Yep, this is same sort of nonsense as Brin's Transparent Society, and for much the same reason - the inequity of power means that the powerful have more to gain from access to this information than the dispossessed do. For positions of societal trust freely entered into, there is a solid rationale for making those individuals release their returns publicly - but for everyone else, the harms outweigh any benefit.
This is a conclusion, not an argument. You owe us a response to the points in the article that argue against this position before you get to call it 'nonsense'. Why are Finland and Norway more equal than the USA-shouldn't the powerful be able to leverage publicly available tax data against the weak in those nations if your position were correct? Tax is significantly avoided by the wealthy in the USA and sunlight on the specifics of the matter would help enforce the wealthy paying their obligation, decreasing inequality, right? If not, why not? Isn't there good reason to think that tax record exposure could reveal patterns of systemic discrimination against the powerless? Other kinds of taxes like property taxes are already exposed in the proposed manner-what is the argument that income taxes deserve a special privacy dispensation? When income taxes *were* exposed in the past, the wealthy and powerful didn't like it and got the data made private. Isn't that evidence that their interests weren't being served by public tax data?
posted by Kwine at 7:11 AM on April 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
This is a conclusion, not an argument. You owe us a response to the points in the article that argue against this position before you get to call it 'nonsense'. Why are Finland and Norway more equal than the USA-shouldn't the powerful be able to leverage publicly available tax data against the weak in those nations if your position were correct? Tax is significantly avoided by the wealthy in the USA and sunlight on the specifics of the matter would help enforce the wealthy paying their obligation, decreasing inequality, right? If not, why not? Isn't there good reason to think that tax record exposure could reveal patterns of systemic discrimination against the powerless? Other kinds of taxes like property taxes are already exposed in the proposed manner-what is the argument that income taxes deserve a special privacy dispensation? When income taxes *were* exposed in the past, the wealthy and powerful didn't like it and got the data made private. Isn't that evidence that their interests weren't being served by public tax data?
posted by Kwine at 7:11 AM on April 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
Etrigan: Yeah, I can imagine how much companies would love to know how much I've made -- and particularly how much I've settled for when unemployed vs. how much I've accepted to change jobs.
schmod: Oh, they already know.
Yep, and your information, sold in bulk, is pretty cheap. I've seen data from a U.S.-based data aggregator, which includes estimated wealth (in broad categories), potential purchasing power, potential investor status, heavy internet usage, early tech adopter, and some public records like political party affiliation.
The data isn't 100% accurate, so there are some false matches and some estimation, but it's still a lot more information about named individuals than I was expecting to see, and for about $30,000 the entirety of a large, rural state.
I write all this not to spook you, but to tell you in no uncertain terms, many of your details are tracked and (attempted to be) paired to you as an individual. Micro-targeting is not only the domain of Facebook and Google.
Back to this topic, I think making taxes (back 5 years) public records for anyone who runs for office seems like a reasonable thing. None of this demanding records from the IRS -- have the IRS simply publish these records for anyone who is officially running for public office.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:15 AM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
schmod: Oh, they already know.
Yep, and your information, sold in bulk, is pretty cheap. I've seen data from a U.S.-based data aggregator, which includes estimated wealth (in broad categories), potential purchasing power, potential investor status, heavy internet usage, early tech adopter, and some public records like political party affiliation.
The data isn't 100% accurate, so there are some false matches and some estimation, but it's still a lot more information about named individuals than I was expecting to see, and for about $30,000 the entirety of a large, rural state.
I write all this not to spook you, but to tell you in no uncertain terms, many of your details are tracked and (attempted to be) paired to you as an individual. Micro-targeting is not only the domain of Facebook and Google.
Back to this topic, I think making taxes (back 5 years) public records for anyone who runs for office seems like a reasonable thing. None of this demanding records from the IRS -- have the IRS simply publish these records for anyone who is officially running for public office.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:15 AM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
There's a vast difference between someone looking to assume a position of societal trust and someone seeking assistance from the government.
I feel like in a truly fair society, there could possibly be no difference between these two people, and in fact they could be the same person at the same moment in time.
posted by hippybear at 7:32 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
I feel like in a truly fair society, there could possibly be no difference between these two people, and in fact they could be the same person at the same moment in time.
posted by hippybear at 7:32 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
Let’s say you’re a hard-working, scrappy and ambitious young person, but you never went to college and you haven’t yet had a high-paying job. With tax-record publication, it will be harder to pitch yourself as a quality hire with upside potential. Everyone can look and see that you haven’t been paid much in the past.In the article Tyler also posits,
Or think about the dating market. Tax transparency would give high-earning men and women a bigger advantage and hurt their lower-earning competitors. Do we really wish to do that in an age of growing income inequality and diminished upward mobility?These arguments don't make sense to me.
I can do that now, today - by looking at your linkedin. It doesn't take a brain genius to calculate someone's relative socio-economic standing when you have to do a modicum of reference checking. It takes ten minutes of pointed questions. In what universe do you need to look up people's tax returns to figure out they don't have a lot of money?
It's only illuminating in the other direction - how much money do you have above average?
Re: privacy, ya don't have to make the full form available. Just gross and net income, make lookups authenticated and public. On the flip side, when we made CEO pay transparent, they used it to negotiate higher salaries.
posted by pmv at 7:32 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
I don't just want to know whether my coworkers (hired at the same pay grade as me with substantially less experience) are being paid more than me (it looks likely). I could probably find out by asking if I could get up the nerve, which is not made easier by my employer politely asking me not to discuss compensation with coworkers. (They can't fire me for it, but...) I want my employers to know that I could know that information easily and behave accordingly.
Failing that, I will settle for employers not being permitted to request salary history, and being required to post real pay ranges for every job opening. Colorado's SB19-085 will very likely make that happen for me this year. Imagine knowing in advance whether it's even worth bothering to apply for jobs, having a better basis for negotiating pay, not being underpaid forever because of being underpaid early. I can't wait.
posted by asperity at 7:42 AM on April 17, 2019 [10 favorites]
Failing that, I will settle for employers not being permitted to request salary history, and being required to post real pay ranges for every job opening. Colorado's SB19-085 will very likely make that happen for me this year. Imagine knowing in advance whether it's even worth bothering to apply for jobs, having a better basis for negotiating pay, not being underpaid forever because of being underpaid early. I can't wait.
posted by asperity at 7:42 AM on April 17, 2019 [10 favorites]
When income taxes *were* exposed in the past, the wealthy and powerful didn't like it and got the data made private. Isn't that evidence that their interests weren't being served by public tax data?
This is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument, and it has the same flaw that all such arguments have - just because someone is your enemy doesn't make them wrong. Privacy issues don't stop being privacy issues when the target is someone we're opposed to - this is why I have a problem with this piece about Robert Kraft's fight against Florida's sunshine laws making the surveillance video from Orchids of Asia fair game, as they talk a lot about how wide-ranging those laws are, but ignore how they actually harm people arrested, as Florida is ground zero for the mugshot shakedown scam thanks to those very laws.
(Quick primer: there are websites that acquire mugshots from local law enforcement and then put them online with SEO optimization, so that they pop up high on the search for the individual's name. This does a massive amount of damage to said individuals, since such searches are standard practice when applying for jobs, entering into relationships, etc. Of course, said sites are willing to remove the entries - for a fee. Florida has been very problematic here, because the sunshine laws make getting mugshots much easier.)
As for the property tax bit, that's Appelbaum arguing in bad faith, because he knows that he can't get around the privacy issue. He knows that to release the very basic information made public for property taxes would not work for income taxes, if the purpose is to publicly identify tax scofflaws and cheats - a greater deal of information is necessary. Furthermore, he misrepresents why property tax info is public - it's because all of the data used to assess it is public information, something that is decidedly not true of income tax.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:43 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
This is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument, and it has the same flaw that all such arguments have - just because someone is your enemy doesn't make them wrong. Privacy issues don't stop being privacy issues when the target is someone we're opposed to - this is why I have a problem with this piece about Robert Kraft's fight against Florida's sunshine laws making the surveillance video from Orchids of Asia fair game, as they talk a lot about how wide-ranging those laws are, but ignore how they actually harm people arrested, as Florida is ground zero for the mugshot shakedown scam thanks to those very laws.
(Quick primer: there are websites that acquire mugshots from local law enforcement and then put them online with SEO optimization, so that they pop up high on the search for the individual's name. This does a massive amount of damage to said individuals, since such searches are standard practice when applying for jobs, entering into relationships, etc. Of course, said sites are willing to remove the entries - for a fee. Florida has been very problematic here, because the sunshine laws make getting mugshots much easier.)
As for the property tax bit, that's Appelbaum arguing in bad faith, because he knows that he can't get around the privacy issue. He knows that to release the very basic information made public for property taxes would not work for income taxes, if the purpose is to publicly identify tax scofflaws and cheats - a greater deal of information is necessary. Furthermore, he misrepresents why property tax info is public - it's because all of the data used to assess it is public information, something that is decidedly not true of income tax.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:43 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
I can do that now, today - by looking at your linkedin. It doesn't take a brain genius to calculate someone's relative socio-economic standing when you have to do a modicum of reference checking. It takes ten minutes of pointed questions. In what universe do you need to look up people's tax returns to figure out they don't have a lot of money?
This misses the point of the argument. Having those returns means that you don't have to ask those questions - instead you can just run an algorithm through the data, and get the information before you even meet. We're already struggling with the erosion of privacy - we don't need to erode it more.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:50 AM on April 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
This misses the point of the argument. Having those returns means that you don't have to ask those questions - instead you can just run an algorithm through the data, and get the information before you even meet. We're already struggling with the erosion of privacy - we don't need to erode it more.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:50 AM on April 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
pmv: On the flip side, when we made CEO pay transparent, they used it to negotiate higher salaries.
Then we should cap top pay (and bonuses?) at a percentage of the lowest paid person in the company. Want a raise? Bring up the lowest paid people in your company, contractors included, so you can't contract out janitorial services and groundskeeping to keep their pay low while everyone else gets paid more.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:55 AM on April 17, 2019 [14 favorites]
Then we should cap top pay (and bonuses?) at a percentage of the lowest paid person in the company. Want a raise? Bring up the lowest paid people in your company, contractors included, so you can't contract out janitorial services and groundskeeping to keep their pay low while everyone else gets paid more.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:55 AM on April 17, 2019 [14 favorites]
My voting records (including political affiliation), drivers license, car registration, birth certificate, marriage license, and deed to my house (including valuation and property tax assessment) are already part of the public record.
Coincidentally, companies use all of that publicly available information to sell me stuff and would howl like a kicked dog if we were to enact some privacy rules around that existing data.
I say make it public.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:56 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Coincidentally, companies use all of that publicly available information to sell me stuff and would howl like a kicked dog if we were to enact some privacy rules around that existing data.
I say make it public.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:56 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Also, fuck yes you should have to make certain information publicly available if you're being sworn in to any public office. Income, yes, and also real property and residence info. If you're required to live in a place to serve it, we should have some way of knowing whether you're really living there. Though given entirely legitimate security concerns, I'd be OK with having that part enforced through some sort of audit system rather than crowdsourced stalking.
I'd be subject to this myself, but since I wasn't with-it enough to buy my home under anything but my actual name, where I live is public record anyway. I guess if my income were also known, it'd be pretty damn clear I'm not hiding a second residence.
posted by asperity at 7:57 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
I'd be subject to this myself, but since I wasn't with-it enough to buy my home under anything but my actual name, where I live is public record anyway. I guess if my income were also known, it'd be pretty damn clear I'm not hiding a second residence.
posted by asperity at 7:57 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
As an employee of a public agency, my salary and that of my coworkers is public knowledge. Local media do FOIA requests every year and publish searchable databases. In addition, because I am at manager level (even though I don't directly manage anyone) I am required to submit a "Form 700" which discloses all of my investment information (with limits--I don't have to disclose investments in managed funds, just individual stocks, real estate other than my primary home, any business interests, etc.) it is also available via FOIA. It is designed to prevent conflicts of interest in creating a contract with a company in which I have an interest.
I'm wasn't thrilled with this disclosure initially, but it is the way it is. Because my workplace is Union, I know exactly what my coworkers make--there are no salary negotiations, I came in at the level for my position title and climbed up the range for that level through annual negotiated increases--both "steps" to get me to the top of the range and raises. I find it freeing after coming from the private sector.
posted by agatha_magatha at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2019 [13 favorites]
I'm wasn't thrilled with this disclosure initially, but it is the way it is. Because my workplace is Union, I know exactly what my coworkers make--there are no salary negotiations, I came in at the level for my position title and climbed up the range for that level through annual negotiated increases--both "steps" to get me to the top of the range and raises. I find it freeing after coming from the private sector.
posted by agatha_magatha at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2019 [13 favorites]
A few weeks ago, this mini-trend went around on Twitter of people tweeting their salaries. An immigrant I know tweeted, "Yeah, that's how you get your family kidnapped."
posted by roll truck roll at 8:08 AM on April 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by roll truck roll at 8:08 AM on April 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
Privacy issues don't stop being privacy issues when the target is someone we're opposed to
But, privacy for normal people is dead, and has always been dead. The rich and powerful have always been able to buy information about you by paying people to research the relevant public records, and by buying information from private-commerce companies either legitimately or "off-label," or just by paying people to follow you around and spy on you.
You do not have privacy from the rich and powerful, and you never have had it, and you never will have it. The only question is whether the rich and powerful have privacy from you.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
But, privacy for normal people is dead, and has always been dead. The rich and powerful have always been able to buy information about you by paying people to research the relevant public records, and by buying information from private-commerce companies either legitimately or "off-label," or just by paying people to follow you around and spy on you.
You do not have privacy from the rich and powerful, and you never have had it, and you never will have it. The only question is whether the rich and powerful have privacy from you.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
We're already struggling with the erosion of privacy - we don't need to erode it more.
Exactly. Sigh - although - sometimes transparency can help - when people are willingly participating.
Many years ago, I happened to work with a brilliant technology specialist - who was a recent immigrant. Now - he wasn't an employee - he was a sub-contractor, working through a small consulting firm. Several of us (other contractors) were aware of the VAST discrepancy between what his hourly rate was - and the hourly rate that the client was being billed for.
It wasn't double, it wasn't triple, the rate they charged us was more than quintuple what he was being paid.
He had no idea how badly he was being used. He was the only contractor from that firm who actually had the knowledge and expertise in that technology (so the argument of "well, you are paying for a team/service from our consultancy, we could swap him out if necessary" was completely false).
Well - we (other sub-contractors) couldn't stand it, and informed him of what the market rates were for his services.
Six months later he was billing directly - and had opened two cafes, employing many other people. If he had continued to slave away at his original rate, he would have never had a chance.
Now... Would income tax returns have helped? No. We were all sub-contractors - "corp-to-corp", so not W2/T4 salaried employees... (well - it all depends on how each sub-contractor structured their independent company) - but, if he would have only looked at the salaried yearly income for a similar position, he would still have been underpaid.
posted by jkaczor at 8:25 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Exactly. Sigh - although - sometimes transparency can help - when people are willingly participating.
Many years ago, I happened to work with a brilliant technology specialist - who was a recent immigrant. Now - he wasn't an employee - he was a sub-contractor, working through a small consulting firm. Several of us (other contractors) were aware of the VAST discrepancy between what his hourly rate was - and the hourly rate that the client was being billed for.
It wasn't double, it wasn't triple, the rate they charged us was more than quintuple what he was being paid.
He had no idea how badly he was being used. He was the only contractor from that firm who actually had the knowledge and expertise in that technology (so the argument of "well, you are paying for a team/service from our consultancy, we could swap him out if necessary" was completely false).
Well - we (other sub-contractors) couldn't stand it, and informed him of what the market rates were for his services.
Six months later he was billing directly - and had opened two cafes, employing many other people. If he had continued to slave away at his original rate, he would have never had a chance.
Now... Would income tax returns have helped? No. We were all sub-contractors - "corp-to-corp", so not W2/T4 salaried employees... (well - it all depends on how each sub-contractor structured their independent company) - but, if he would have only looked at the salaried yearly income for a similar position, he would still have been underpaid.
posted by jkaczor at 8:25 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
A few weeks ago, this mini-trend went around on Twitter of people tweeting their salaries. An immigrant I know tweeted, "Yeah, that's how you get your family kidnapped."
Full tax returns of parents claiming a dependent care credit contain the name and address of the care provider, which I'm sure a not difficult to imagine subset of estranged ex-spouses would be very interested in. Hard pass.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:40 AM on April 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
Full tax returns of parents claiming a dependent care credit contain the name and address of the care provider, which I'm sure a not difficult to imagine subset of estranged ex-spouses would be very interested in. Hard pass.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:40 AM on April 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
Interesting that so many people, who probably agree 100% that Donald Trump should release his tax returns, are dead set against release of their own.
Sure, there are benefits to privacy. But there are also many benefits to publicness. The trick is balancing the two and deciding where the dividing line is. As noted in upthread, a lot of our financial information is already out there and easily accessed by almost anyone. Income tax information could be made publicly available without releasing sensitive personal information like the addresses of child care providers. In the Norwegian system, the only info you can find about someone is their net income, net assets and tax paid. And you can find out who looked you up. I see no reason that wouldn't work and shouldn't happen in the U.S.
posted by beagle at 8:47 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
Sure, there are benefits to privacy. But there are also many benefits to publicness. The trick is balancing the two and deciding where the dividing line is. As noted in upthread, a lot of our financial information is already out there and easily accessed by almost anyone. Income tax information could be made publicly available without releasing sensitive personal information like the addresses of child care providers. In the Norwegian system, the only info you can find about someone is their net income, net assets and tax paid. And you can find out who looked you up. I see no reason that wouldn't work and shouldn't happen in the U.S.
posted by beagle at 8:47 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
Coincidentally, companies use all of that publicly available information to sell me stuff and would howl like a kicked dog if we were to enact some privacy rules around that existing data.
So who cares? Make them hurt. We need more privacy, not less. I don’t think anyone is deeply harmed by companies not being able to exploitively target “mortgage insurance!” To new homebuyers.
posted by corb at 8:50 AM on April 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
So who cares? Make them hurt. We need more privacy, not less. I don’t think anyone is deeply harmed by companies not being able to exploitively target “mortgage insurance!” To new homebuyers.
posted by corb at 8:50 AM on April 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
terrible idea. I recall living in a strata where water use became a concern which led to demands that everybody's personal usage numbers become public knowledge (within the strata anyway). It was tried and it accomplished nothing but divisiveness, acrimony. The political animals in the crowd dove in, behaved like animals, made a mess of things. So the policy was scrapped after only a few months.
But people still remember who the "villains" were. It still comes up.
There's a reason why we have such a notion as privacy.
as for people running for political office, other key positions, I'm not necessarily opposed
posted by philip-random at 8:53 AM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
But people still remember who the "villains" were. It still comes up.
There's a reason why we have such a notion as privacy.
as for people running for political office, other key positions, I'm not necessarily opposed
posted by philip-random at 8:53 AM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
Interesting that so many people, who probably agree 100% that Donald Trump should release his tax returns, are dead set against release of their own.
I can think of at least one big difference between me and Donald Trump.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 9:01 AM on April 17, 2019 [20 favorites]
I can think of at least one big difference between me and Donald Trump.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 9:01 AM on April 17, 2019 [20 favorites]
Tax returns for public office holders are just a legally binding (er, kind of) stand in for "show some transparency about your finances and ensure the public you don't have massive conflicts of interest and/or evidence of criminal activity". Have all of them fill out some sort of affidavit with just the important bits of their financial info, that's fine too. But I think it's important for people in positions of public trust to be transparent about, oh, say, not being a part of an international money laundering racket.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:02 AM on April 17, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:02 AM on April 17, 2019 [13 favorites]
So, the con argument basically boils down to "It makes poor people feel bad when they realize that they are poor"?
Or maybe 'It makes rich people feel bad about not being richer' with a side dish of 'and here's a document stating how their competitors pulled ahead.'
posted by pwnguin at 9:10 AM on April 17, 2019
Or maybe 'It makes rich people feel bad about not being richer' with a side dish of 'and here's a document stating how their competitors pulled ahead.'
posted by pwnguin at 9:10 AM on April 17, 2019
Sure, if I can find a company directory, narrow down which "John Smith" has a job like the one I'm applying for, get John's tax returns, figure out when he started the job, see what other parts of his resume are like or unlike mine... and of course, I'm doing this for each job I apply for, because I have that kind of time.
"I won't be able to use it because everyone I'm going to work with is a white man of English descent over the age of 50 and named accordingly" is a super weird way to take this. There are a lot of legitimate privacy implications here, but the actual country I live in, even in very "white" areas of the midwest, I have never had the problem of working in a place where my only possible salary compares were to people who were un-searchable. And a huge part of the potential benefit here isn't just on initial hiring, it's on helping people who already work at a company determine if their current pay is equitable compared to their coworkers over time--insofar as they ever are, the most motivated your company will ever be to make you a market-rate offer is at your hire date.
I'm not sure I believe that's enough to outweigh the problems of the other information you can get from a person's tax returns, because that's a lot! But there's a lot of assumptions built into the idea that you can't search for comparable employees that don't reflect the diversity of the modern work force. If anything, the fact that people are so easy to find is part of why the privacy issue is such a significant one.
posted by Sequence at 9:16 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
"I won't be able to use it because everyone I'm going to work with is a white man of English descent over the age of 50 and named accordingly" is a super weird way to take this. There are a lot of legitimate privacy implications here, but the actual country I live in, even in very "white" areas of the midwest, I have never had the problem of working in a place where my only possible salary compares were to people who were un-searchable. And a huge part of the potential benefit here isn't just on initial hiring, it's on helping people who already work at a company determine if their current pay is equitable compared to their coworkers over time--insofar as they ever are, the most motivated your company will ever be to make you a market-rate offer is at your hire date.
I'm not sure I believe that's enough to outweigh the problems of the other information you can get from a person's tax returns, because that's a lot! But there's a lot of assumptions built into the idea that you can't search for comparable employees that don't reflect the diversity of the modern work force. If anything, the fact that people are so easy to find is part of why the privacy issue is such a significant one.
posted by Sequence at 9:16 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
Or maybe 'It makes rich people feel bad about not being richer' with a side dish of 'and here's a document stating how their competitors pulled ahead.'
The ones who don’t already feel bad likely never will.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:17 AM on April 17, 2019
The ones who don’t already feel bad likely never will.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:17 AM on April 17, 2019
Absolutely not. What if I win the lottery and my neighbors find out? I have been terrified of this for decades.
posted by notreally at 9:29 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by notreally at 9:29 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
This sounds exactly like the same sort of horseshit logic companies use to keep employees from discussing their salaries. They know if everyone knows how much each is paid, we will all come to realize we are being underpaid and will demand fair wages.
This doesn't destroy privacy either, how much you make isn't private information nor should it be. If somebody pays you for work in secret private personal money, fine, keep it private, but if you're getting or spending federal reserve notes, that's everyone's business.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:41 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
This doesn't destroy privacy either, how much you make isn't private information nor should it be. If somebody pays you for work in secret private personal money, fine, keep it private, but if you're getting or spending federal reserve notes, that's everyone's business.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:41 AM on April 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
but everyone's an asshole -- we've learned that much from social media, haven't we?
posted by philip-random at 9:58 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 9:58 AM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
NoxAeternum I think what you, and the various critics of the Transparent Society argument are not addressing is that the powerful **ALREADY** have this. Do you think for one moment that your employer can't find out everything that'd be in your tax return? Hell, they supply the bulk of the data themselves. And if they're not selling at least the aggregate data to someone I'll be extremely surprised.
If Bill Gates wants to know what's in your tax return he can find out in an instant and at no measurable cost to him even if finding out requires hiring a PI to track you for months. Because to Bill Gates hiring a PI to track you for months costs him a smaller percentage of his annual budget than spending one penny would cost you in your annual budget.
The people able to do the most harm with this information already have it, or can if they want it. Making it public levels the playing field by letting the powerless have what currently only the powerful possess.
I'm 100% behind making everyone's tax returns public.
Grimgrin I think asking ourselves how the worst people would use and abuse something is a good starting place. However, I'd also argue that we are already in that situation given that the worst people (the Koches, etc) do have access to that info right now, and the only thing we'd lose by making it public is the comforting illusion of privacy.
We don't have real economic privacy, we just have the self delusion of economic privacy, a lie we tell ourselves to make us feel better about how exposed we really are. Since we don't have it, giving up the delusion that we do have it can't really be bad.
posted by sotonohito at 10:03 AM on April 17, 2019
If Bill Gates wants to know what's in your tax return he can find out in an instant and at no measurable cost to him even if finding out requires hiring a PI to track you for months. Because to Bill Gates hiring a PI to track you for months costs him a smaller percentage of his annual budget than spending one penny would cost you in your annual budget.
The people able to do the most harm with this information already have it, or can if they want it. Making it public levels the playing field by letting the powerless have what currently only the powerful possess.
I'm 100% behind making everyone's tax returns public.
Grimgrin I think asking ourselves how the worst people would use and abuse something is a good starting place. However, I'd also argue that we are already in that situation given that the worst people (the Koches, etc) do have access to that info right now, and the only thing we'd lose by making it public is the comforting illusion of privacy.
We don't have real economic privacy, we just have the self delusion of economic privacy, a lie we tell ourselves to make us feel better about how exposed we really are. Since we don't have it, giving up the delusion that we do have it can't really be bad.
posted by sotonohito at 10:03 AM on April 17, 2019
Since everyone seems to have all this "evidence" that rich people can already just phone up up the IRS and get our tax returns, please send it to the Times/Post so some in-depth Pulitzer Prize winning articles can be written.
posted by sideshow at 10:23 AM on April 17, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by sideshow at 10:23 AM on April 17, 2019 [7 favorites]
"the people able to do the most harm with this information already have it, or can if they want it"
Yeah. No. There are alot of other bad actors out there who are already scamming people with just having their telephone number, name and possibly email address. Now you want to give criminals MORE information, so they can verify everything about their targets?
posted by jkaczor at 10:26 AM on April 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
Yeah. No. There are alot of other bad actors out there who are already scamming people with just having their telephone number, name and possibly email address. Now you want to give criminals MORE information, so they can verify everything about their targets?
posted by jkaczor at 10:26 AM on April 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
Also, I find it confusing that we live in a world where both "you want a toe tax return? I can get you a tax return, believe me" and Trump/Bernie hiding their returns for years can exist at the same time.
posted by sideshow at 10:27 AM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by sideshow at 10:27 AM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
I feel like there's a huge disconnect in the thread between two camps because I'm not sure everyone is discussing the same thing. The NYT opinion piece and the established practice of Norway is emphatically not releasing the entire tax return. Instead only the income and tax amount paid would be public.
This means that this would not be a panacea for politicians failing to disclose conflicts of interest, etc.
It also means that some of the privacy concerns raised upthread don't seem to apply.
That being said, there is still the potential for misuse to try to discriminate against people in more precarious economic positions, for instance.
posted by thegears at 10:37 AM on April 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
This means that this would not be a panacea for politicians failing to disclose conflicts of interest, etc.
It also means that some of the privacy concerns raised upthread don't seem to apply.
That being said, there is still the potential for misuse to try to discriminate against people in more precarious economic positions, for instance.
posted by thegears at 10:37 AM on April 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
The NYT opinion piece and the established practice of Norway is emphatically not releasing the entire tax return. Instead only the income and tax amount paid would be public.
This means that this would not be a panacea for politicians failing to disclose conflicts of interest, etc.
It also means that some of the privacy concerns raised upthread don't seem to apply.
Well, no - given that Appelbaum opens his op/ed by discussing how open disclosure of all tax returns would disclose financial perfidy by the wealthy and politicians, what this conflation shows is that he's making a rather dishonest argument. If you're arguing for public disclosure to root out misconduct, that means releasing a large amount of data - which comes attendant with privacy issues. On the other hand, if you're arguing for a limited release that is designed to maintain privacy, then it's going to be of limited usefulness in rooting out misconduct. Conflating the two is arguing in bad faith.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:00 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
This means that this would not be a panacea for politicians failing to disclose conflicts of interest, etc.
It also means that some of the privacy concerns raised upthread don't seem to apply.
Well, no - given that Appelbaum opens his op/ed by discussing how open disclosure of all tax returns would disclose financial perfidy by the wealthy and politicians, what this conflation shows is that he's making a rather dishonest argument. If you're arguing for public disclosure to root out misconduct, that means releasing a large amount of data - which comes attendant with privacy issues. On the other hand, if you're arguing for a limited release that is designed to maintain privacy, then it's going to be of limited usefulness in rooting out misconduct. Conflating the two is arguing in bad faith.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:00 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
If Bill Gates wants to know what's in your tax return he can find out in an instant and at no measurable cost to him even if finding out requires hiring a PI to track you for months. Because to Bill Gates hiring a PI to track you for months costs him a smaller percentage of his annual budget than spending one penny would cost you in your annual budget.
Yes, but what would the cost be for him to do that for every tax return filed in the US? Because that, I would be willing to bet, would be a serious expenditure even for Bill Gates - and that's what you want to offer up on a silver platter.
The fact that the wealthy can use - and more importantly abuse - their power to acquire information on someone does not mean that "privacy is dead".
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:06 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yes, but what would the cost be for him to do that for every tax return filed in the US? Because that, I would be willing to bet, would be a serious expenditure even for Bill Gates - and that's what you want to offer up on a silver platter.
The fact that the wealthy can use - and more importantly abuse - their power to acquire information on someone does not mean that "privacy is dead".
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:06 AM on April 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
We live in a society that measures your worth by how much you make (or, perhaps, by how much you consume). Transparency makes sense in Scandinavia, say, because those societies take care of their people, and disparities in income matter, but less so. We don't do that here. The writer does not take the American system into account in his thesis, and what it would mean to essentially stamp a social value score on every American's forehead, by making their income public.
Nonetheless, we need to make Trump's sources of income and tax returns public, not because of uniform transparency as an abstract philosophical ideal, but because he has measurable economic interests that are relevant to how he conducts his affairs while in office, and because we have the Emoluments Clause built into the very guts of the Constitution to prevent the kind of corruption he brings to the Presidency on a daily basis.
If the goal of transparency is to help correct imbalances in economic relationships, let's see those returns. And let's make campaign contributions transparent, while we're at it. When politicians make laws, let's know exactly how much dark money went into those laws, and which oligarchs and business entities paid for those laws. Some transparency where powerful interests flex their muscles would be useful to serve that purpose.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:21 PM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
Nonetheless, we need to make Trump's sources of income and tax returns public, not because of uniform transparency as an abstract philosophical ideal, but because he has measurable economic interests that are relevant to how he conducts his affairs while in office, and because we have the Emoluments Clause built into the very guts of the Constitution to prevent the kind of corruption he brings to the Presidency on a daily basis.
If the goal of transparency is to help correct imbalances in economic relationships, let's see those returns. And let's make campaign contributions transparent, while we're at it. When politicians make laws, let's know exactly how much dark money went into those laws, and which oligarchs and business entities paid for those laws. Some transparency where powerful interests flex their muscles would be useful to serve that purpose.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:21 PM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
Knowing someone's taxable income and tax paid tells you close to nothing about their actual income and wealth.
TBH I don't really understand all the things it's possible to do to make those things different. Or what sorts of nefarious things one might be able to do with the info on my 1040 barring the obvious identity theft stuff. Without any additional attachments like the W-2 forms themselves, it's just numbers. Numbers that people with power over my livelihood don't want me to share.
The only difference between my totally ordinary W-2 wages and my adjusted gross income is the student loan interest deduction, which, well. Not exactly a secret that I'm maxing that one out every year.
The original amount borrowed for my mortgage is public record as much as my property taxes are. It's fairly easy to sum up my likely required monthly expenses as it is. The marketers must already know everything they need to know about me, or else my Twitter feed wouldn't be full of ads for Hot Pockets and KY lube.
posted by asperity at 12:23 PM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
TBH I don't really understand all the things it's possible to do to make those things different. Or what sorts of nefarious things one might be able to do with the info on my 1040 barring the obvious identity theft stuff. Without any additional attachments like the W-2 forms themselves, it's just numbers. Numbers that people with power over my livelihood don't want me to share.
The only difference between my totally ordinary W-2 wages and my adjusted gross income is the student loan interest deduction, which, well. Not exactly a secret that I'm maxing that one out every year.
The original amount borrowed for my mortgage is public record as much as my property taxes are. It's fairly easy to sum up my likely required monthly expenses as it is. The marketers must already know everything they need to know about me, or else my Twitter feed wouldn't be full of ads for Hot Pockets and KY lube.
posted by asperity at 12:23 PM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
Absolutely not. What if I win the lottery and my neighbors find out? I have been terrified of this for decades.
By the time your neighbors find out, they will no longer be your neighbors.
posted by srboisvert at 1:50 PM on April 17, 2019
By the time your neighbors find out, they will no longer be your neighbors.
posted by srboisvert at 1:50 PM on April 17, 2019
But if you tell everyone what your making then the Capitalists lose the game of "shhhhh, nobody talk about their wages and how much they're getting dicked".
posted by symbioid at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by symbioid at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
This will accomplish nothing, apart from fueling jealousy.
posted by tgrundke at 4:23 PM on April 17, 2019
posted by tgrundke at 4:23 PM on April 17, 2019
This will accomplish nothing, apart from fueling jealousy.
This is precisely what employers say when they are trying to suppress the wages of their workers. Keep 'em in the dark and keep 'em quiet.
Millions of federal, state and local salaries are available on line for every employee in their jurisdiction, by name. There have been no catastrophic effects. It has exposed many cases of corruption.
posted by JackFlash at 4:52 PM on April 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
This is precisely what employers say when they are trying to suppress the wages of their workers. Keep 'em in the dark and keep 'em quiet.
Millions of federal, state and local salaries are available on line for every employee in their jurisdiction, by name. There have been no catastrophic effects. It has exposed many cases of corruption.
posted by JackFlash at 4:52 PM on April 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
Any time you associate a number with something, or someone, the impulse to order and rank is almost completely impossible to resist. Yes, we tend to roughly assign status to people now, but if every single person had their net income known? The gamification of that kind of thing would have horrible side effects.
There are a lot of people -- maybe even most of the people in the world -- who work for less money because they have a deep-seated desire to have a meaningful, positive impact on the world, to work with good people, for good benefits, to have time for their family and friendships, to at least not actively harm the world. The money issue is in the background, and while it would be nice to make more, it isn't that big of a deal to them. People don't judge them for it.
In a world where Tracy and Jim become Tracy ($122,830) and Jim ($64,120), the ability to just focus on their lives in a balanced way is seriously hampered.
privacy for normal people is dead, and has always been dead.
Not true. Even if it's not 100% impossible to know whatever one wants about a person, even a modicum of difficulty or cost makes a _lot_ of abuses practically impossible. That's the reasoning behind the $5 signup here, isn't it? It's totally inexpensive, not really an obstacle to the vast majority of people, and if it is an obstacle I understand there are ways around it -- but even that much friction makes the whole site qualitatively different.
See also: envelopes on postal letters. Sure, anybody could steam one open, or even just cut it open and re-seal it, but the fact that there's an envelope there makes it clear that it's not _normal_ to read peoples' mail, and that makes a huge difference.
posted by amtho at 7:15 PM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
There are a lot of people -- maybe even most of the people in the world -- who work for less money because they have a deep-seated desire to have a meaningful, positive impact on the world, to work with good people, for good benefits, to have time for their family and friendships, to at least not actively harm the world. The money issue is in the background, and while it would be nice to make more, it isn't that big of a deal to them. People don't judge them for it.
In a world where Tracy and Jim become Tracy ($122,830) and Jim ($64,120), the ability to just focus on their lives in a balanced way is seriously hampered.
privacy for normal people is dead, and has always been dead.
Not true. Even if it's not 100% impossible to know whatever one wants about a person, even a modicum of difficulty or cost makes a _lot_ of abuses practically impossible. That's the reasoning behind the $5 signup here, isn't it? It's totally inexpensive, not really an obstacle to the vast majority of people, and if it is an obstacle I understand there are ways around it -- but even that much friction makes the whole site qualitatively different.
See also: envelopes on postal letters. Sure, anybody could steam one open, or even just cut it open and re-seal it, but the fact that there's an envelope there makes it clear that it's not _normal_ to read peoples' mail, and that makes a huge difference.
posted by amtho at 7:15 PM on April 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
Instead only the income and tax amount paid would be public.
For comparison, property taxes where I live are public, including whether they're late.
That's different from having access to a full tax return, of course, per the several examples that people have given. (You won't see a child care credit, for one example.) And, it's info tied to the property, not directly to the person.
posted by gimonca at 4:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
For comparison, property taxes where I live are public, including whether they're late.
That's different from having access to a full tax return, of course, per the several examples that people have given. (You won't see a child care credit, for one example.) And, it's info tied to the property, not directly to the person.
posted by gimonca at 4:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think that very low level of detail (eg. gross income and taxes paid) from everyone, no anonymous searches of tax records, and more detailed information on people running for/holding public office, employing some number of people, or making over some amount/having greater than some value of net worth would be a reasonable policy. I'm more concerned about transparency in capital gains than in regular waged income, though - who makes what sort of profits off of publicly held corporations or off of income property seems like very much a matter of public interest to me. Also, while almost everyone needs to earn a living in order to survive, investing is a choice.
The potential for abusive (ex-) partners/family members to use tax information for abusive purposes - or employers to discriminate against people with disabilities, as per one example mentioned upthread - is definitely a thing that any policy should consider and attempt to prevent. That's a potential issue for people at any income/wealth level.
However, I think the worries about other people's jealousy are exactly why we need some sort of transparency about wealth distribution. Income/wealth inequality in the US isn't going to decrease without structural changes - changing the incentive structures so that people feel uncomfortable or nervous about making some multiple of what their neighbors make without offsetting that inequity through monetary or other contributions to the community is one such potential structural change.
posted by eviemath at 3:05 PM on April 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
The potential for abusive (ex-) partners/family members to use tax information for abusive purposes - or employers to discriminate against people with disabilities, as per one example mentioned upthread - is definitely a thing that any policy should consider and attempt to prevent. That's a potential issue for people at any income/wealth level.
However, I think the worries about other people's jealousy are exactly why we need some sort of transparency about wealth distribution. Income/wealth inequality in the US isn't going to decrease without structural changes - changing the incentive structures so that people feel uncomfortable or nervous about making some multiple of what their neighbors make without offsetting that inequity through monetary or other contributions to the community is one such potential structural change.
posted by eviemath at 3:05 PM on April 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
Public Tax Returns? No, Just Those of the Well-Off - "Disclosure would discourage cheating and give better insight into the extent of U.S. inequality."
posted by kliuless at 12:12 AM on April 24, 2019
posted by kliuless at 12:12 AM on April 24, 2019
« Older Siamese Jets | Fifteen Months of Fresh Hell Inside Facebook Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Say what now?
posted by chavenet at 6:27 AM on April 17, 2019 [9 favorites]