Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes • Hacker News Board

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#161

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #102

themartorana wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my favorite proposal to date. Sales tax applies equally to a pencil and a yacht. It also encourages savings at lower income levels.

A sales tax is the ultimate regressive tax. At the low end, you don't have much to save anyways (you need to eat!), so you are spending your income and getting taxed. At the high end, you can save a lot more since you make more. And you can always fly off to Hong Kong for a weekend to buy things (that is what happens today in China which has a high VAT/import tax).

No, I think you mean a true flat tax, e.g. a poll tax, is the ultimate regressive tax.

I have come to find that "regressive" moves the goalposts. It sounds as if the rich pay less. They don't pay less; they pay more. They just don't pay more when dividing taxes by their total income. I've never heard a convincing argument for why that formula is the ultimate benchmark.

And anyway, virtually all sales tax proposals have some per capita rebate/basic income, and that can be tweaked to make it as progressive as your heart desires.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#162

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

jsankey wrote: post #86

paulddraper wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried a luxury tax in the 90s. Yachts were more expensive and due to highly elastic demand, the industry plummeted. Companies went under or laid off thousands. But don't worry. Guess who works at yacht manufacturing plants? Not rich people. They weren't hurt, and they were fine with taking their money elsewhere.

Nice straw man. I didn't even mention luxury tax, let alone promote it.

You implied that it would be better if luxury items were taxed at a different (higher) rate than other items. They is a luxury tax.

However, if I misunderstood and you advocate having the same tax rate on luxury goods as other goods, then we are in agreement on this point.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#163

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:11 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #159

Mikeb85 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor are you what? I said I agree with Piketty and Marx. Anyhow, the example was just rhetoric. The point is that communism started because people thought it was unfair that there was a rentier class who essentially monopolized wealth because they had inherited wealth. And communism fell because people thought it was unfair that people who were lazy made the same as people who worked hard. Studies have shown that most…

And we're back to communism again. This thread has nothing to do with communism. That you keep going there shows you can't have a serious conversation; goodbye.

Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place.

It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness.

I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purged an entire century of socialist philosophy from their collective thoughts.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#164

Post by gnaritas » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #163

gnaritas wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we're back to communism again. This thread has nothing to do with communism. That you keep going there shows you can't have a serious conversation; goodbye.

Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place. It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness. I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purg…

> Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place.

That doesn't make them all equivalent.

> It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history

Yes I do, put your phony superiority aside, there's no place for it here.

Communism is not relevant just because we're talking about progressive taxation and that you think is simply shows you're too biased to have an intelligent conversation.

> I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purged an entire century of socialist philosophy from their collective thoughts.

Then you don't get it, because that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is you think you're smarter than you are when you're not even able to engage intelligently in the conversation. A conversation about the fairness of progressive taxation does not have to devolve into a conversation about communism or socialism.

You're taking it there because you have nothing more intelligent to offer. You have no thoughts of your own to offer other than regurgitating what you think you remember from history while pretending no one else is aware of history. Your arrogance is sickening. You're a kid, still in college, and you're acting like no one else has heard of history, grow up and learn to engage like an adult. Have some thoughts of your own. No one is here for a history lesson from a kid who screams communism and socialism every time tax policy is brought up.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#165

Post by beeboop » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #131

wtallis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an annual salary, not an isolated winning lottery ticket. Even if he doesn't currently have a super high net worth, he will soon enough unless he's spending like a lottery winner.

Maybe. I guess it depends on what you consider "super high". It'd take a few years to build up $1m from a $1m salary, and there's no guarantee the job is even kept that long.

A few years? More like 14 months if he's living reasonably.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#166

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

thesteamboat wrote: post #123

jsankey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem, too -- it applies equally to necessities and luxuries. Sales taxes are regressive because there is a certain amount of non-discretionary spending everyone has to make, regardless of income, just to live.

It doesn't necessarily need to. We could have a `digit-sales tax', i.e. count the number of digits in the item cost and add a tax at that percent. Something less than $10 only has a 1% tax, while something costing $10,000 has a 5% tax. Clearly the numbers should be adjusted if someone wants to turn this into a serious tax proposal, but it seems possible to design a progressive sales tax.

Costco would be a bad place to shop.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#167

Post by muzz » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #153

muzz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact that they haven't moved speaks volumes about how much more income they can generate in California versus elsewhere

don't be naive, people that rich don't need to stay in one place, and especially don't have to claim residence in any one place.

are you referring to the OP? they stated they paid California taxes

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#168

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #164

Mikeb85 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place. It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness. I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purg…

> Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place. That doesn't make them all equivalent. > It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history Yes I do, put your phony superiority aside, there's no place for it here. Communism is not relevant just because we're talking about progressive taxation and that you think is simply shows you're too biased to h…

> A conversation about the fairness of progressive taxation does not have to devolve into a conversation about communism or socialism.

Comparing different schools of economic thought absolutely relates to a discussion about rational choice and fairness.

> Communism is not relevant just because we're talking about progressive taxation and that you think is simply shows you're too biased to have an intelligent conversation.

Too biased? In what direction? Have you even been able to ascertain what my position is?

> Your arrogance is sickening. You're a kid, still in college, and you're acting like no one else has heard of history, grow up and learn to engage like an adult. Have some thoughts of your own.

Do you know me? Yet you decide to attack me. Here's a few fun facts about me: I'm not a kid, I'm 30 and have been married for 4 years, have already had a successful career and am changing pace for awhile, and I'm in university because I want to be.

What I know about you - most of your replies in this thread have been one or two liners about progressiveness, with the words 'marginal utility' occasionally thrown in.

> No one is here for a history lesson from a kid who screams communism and socialism every time tax policy is brought up.

Again, just 1 question: What do you think my opinion on taxes is?

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#169

Post by gnaritas » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:55 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #168

gnaritas wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place. That doesn't make them all equivalent. > It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history Yes I do, put your phony superiority aside, there's no place for it here. Communism is not relevant just because we're talking about progressive taxation and that you think is simply shows you're too biased to h…

> A conversation about the fairness of progressive taxation does not have to devolve into a conversation about communism or socialism. Comparing different schools of economic thought absolutely relates to a discussion about rational choice and fairness. > Communism is not relevant just because we're talking about progressive taxation and that you think is simply shows you're too biased to have an intelligent conversa…

You started off your replies by implying progressives are communists with this little nugget

> Progressives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays what they can afford.

Which is not what progressives believe, and then you went full on communist with this little nugget

> Some people also thought "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fair.

And then you started pretending only you knew history.

I don't care what you position is, I'm replying to what you say, not what you think; I can't read your mind, only what you write.

> Do you know me? Yet you decide to attack me.

I don't have to know you to tell you you're behaving arrogantly, and I haven't attacked you, if you think I have, you don't know what attack means. I've criticized your bad behavior, nothing more.

> I'm not a kid, I'm 30

Still a kid to me bub.

> Again, just 1 question: What do you think my opinion on taxes is?

I know what your position is, you stated it

> I'm all for progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance tax, all of it. But I'm also not ignorant of history...

But that's not what we're talking about anymore because you can't stop being arrogant and have derailed any conversation to the point that I no longer care what you think. "But I'm also not ignorant of history", please, grow up, your superiority complex is disgusting.

Re: Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes

#170

Post by wfo » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:15 PM UTC

Zhenya wrote: post #104

gnaritas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I live in California. I'm not "super rich" but we earn more than $1MM/year. > And high-salaried people are getting screwed under Obama's war against the most productive citizens. Stop whining and blaming Obama; there's no war against productive citizens, you aren't a victim. You don't get to complain when you're among the wealthiest in the world that you don't get to keep enough money. 99.9% of the country makes le…

What does it matter what the rest of the world has? If he/she earned it legally, they deserve it. You don't get to make victims out of the rest of the world.

You earned however much the state says you've earned legally; the state makes the laws. Every cent you've made is off the back of the state and at the state's whims, so the state gets to decide how much of its money it will take back, and how much of its money you get to keep as an incentive to keep helping others. If you claim you somehow 'deserve' the millions you are making, then you also 'deserve' to get taxed. You can't have it both ways.