Show HN: I built a(nother) house optimized for LAN parties

When have increased taxes directly contributed to your take home pay?

It doesn’t. They’re just expressing their jealousy in a thinly veiled and highly embarrassing way.

It’s not very thinly veiled

It truly is embarrassing. Imagine seeing something and thinking, "how can I get the government to forcefully take some of that for my benefit?"

It’s not for my benefit, I just want to see Stanford grads get punished. I could get more punitive but I keep that for yelling at strangers in person.

Where did the Stanford thing come from? I went to the University of Minnesota.

How would that even be possible? Presumably some people get a top up if they are on a tiny wage, but ‘direct contribution to take home pay’ really isn’t the point of tax. It also sounds a fairly inefficient use of money.

Have I missed something in this conversation?

Yes you have missed something but don’t worry about it.

Absolutely embarrassing and a real life demonstration of a famous quote:

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

To be fair OP's website explains that most of the money isn't earned income. I'm happy for them though

Any chance you have a gopher server running there then?

When health insurance is 10x cheaper because of it.

What do you mean by “isn’t earned income” ?

The anti-capitalists have this crazy idea that investment income isn’t “earned” in the same way that labor income is. Of course that’s absurdly anti-capitalist and completely ignores the point of capitalism and the function of risk taking incentivized by potential rewards. Failing to make a coherent argument against active investment income, for instance entrepreneurs, they will then revert to criticism of passive investors and their eventual complaint will come to arguing S&P index investors should be taxed on “unrealized” gains.

Remember it’s all illogical nonsense motivated by Envy which they masquerade as Empathy.

Working for a company that pays you in stock and then selling those stocks is in fact earned.

It's motivated by the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards. Having some people in society that can sit at home and watch the S&P increase while some have to work 50-hour weeks to make ends meet is seen as problematic.

> the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards.

and of those hard earned rewards investing them and then sitting at home and watching the S&P increase you mean?

oh wait that’s problematic … let’s take those rewards away for “fairness” .. opps no incentives no meritocracy no prosperity

I thought "earned income" was an actual accounting term (to define a type of taxable income as opposed to passive income):

https://itap1.for.irs.gov/owda/0/resource/Commentary_Files_R...

" Earned income is money received as payment for work, including wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, tips, and net earnings from self-employment. For tax purposes, it can also include long-term disability payments, union strike benefits, and, in some cases, payments from certain deferred retirement compensation arrangements.

Income such as investment profits and Social Security payments is considered unearned income, also known as passive income."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnedincome.asp

It wasn't a judgement remark, "earned income" is what you call that which is not passive income

That’s all accurate and I was assuming you were referring to passive income exactly as you have clarified.

That doesn’t change any of my observations as your comments imply unearned income deserves higher taxation than current is applied, which is what I object to.

What does the “to be fair” part of your sentence mean then?

And your influence, merit and worth are what you're paid in salary. That sounds sane.

I see this as a goal in life, not a problem