Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A world without retirement?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: A world without retirement?

#61

Post by syshum »

ahelwer wrote: post #56
spangry wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that capital is mobile, and that mobility is arguably increasing due to digitisation. In other words, if a country raises tax rates on returns to capital, capital simply relocates somewhere else. I've suggested a solution above (or it might be below by now), but it's complex...

USA already has worldwide tax jurisdiction. The more difficult problem with capital taxation is how to accurately value an asset.

The USA tries to have a worldwide tax jurisdiction, and fails at it

The Large global companies spend millions on ultra complex business structures to avoid US (and EU) taxes.

See GE and Apple as the most publicized examples but they all do it

Re: A world without retirement?

#62

Post by Gatsky »

When visiting the US, I was struck by how many elderly workers there were in restaurants, subways etc. Japan was similar. In Australia, I never see this.

The reasons are presumably:

1. Australia has ok free healthcare 2. The baby boomers have generated massive wealth over the last 50 years because of the property market.

Point 2 certainly won't be repeated for the next generation.

Re: A world without retirement?

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

spangry wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do people who think a feasible UBI future is possible square with this? You have to address the revenue to pay for it, which in most places means ending preferential tax treatment of capital income. Right now, pretty much the whole world has, at any income level, heavier taxation of labor than capital (in the US, higher direct taxes coupled with employer mandates that act as additional taxes; as well as address…

The problem is that capital is mobile, and that mobility is arguably increasing due to digitisation. In other words, if a country raises tax rates on returns to capital, capital simply relocates somewhere else. I've suggested a solution above (or it might be below by now), but it's complex...

> In other words, if a country raises tax rates on returns to capital, capital simply relocates somewhere else.

So, you need to tax value extraction as a condition of allowing firms to do business, ideally rebating that against taxes on locally-realized capital gains so that local capital owners aren't unfairly penalized compared to foreign extractors.

Re: A world without retirement?

#64

Post by ahelwer »

syshum wrote: post #61
ahelwer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA already has worldwide tax jurisdiction. The more difficult problem with capital taxation is how to accurately value an asset.

The USA tries to have a worldwide tax jurisdiction, and fails at it The Large global companies spend millions on ultra complex business structures to avoid US (and EU) taxes. See GE and Apple as the most publicized examples but they all do it

Oh, certainly. However, if the US political climate ever reaches the point where a wealth tax is seriously considered (something which would require a constitutional amendment), I very much doubt these loopholes would still exist.

Re: A world without retirement?

#65

Post by peteretep »

Gatsky wrote: post #62

When visiting the US, I was struck by how many elderly workers there were in restaurants, subways etc. Japan was similar. In Australia, I never see this. The reasons are presumably: 1. Australia has ok free healthcare 2. The baby boomers have generated massive wealth over the last 50 years because of the property market. Point 2 certainly won't be repeated for the next generation.

In the UK, I never see this, but I saw it and found it a little shocking in Amsterdam.

Re: A world without retirement?

#66

Post by peteretep »

rileymat2 wrote: post #6
simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

"Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI would be to lower the "retirement age" every year." I suspect when many (not all) of the supporters of UBI consider it to be the most basic of subsistence payments, not something we would want seniors to retire with. Think of the difference in amounts between SS and unemployment insurance currently.

    > the most basic of subsistence
    > payments, not something we would
    > want seniors to retire with
The full UK pension is £119.30 per week, unemployment benefit (JSA) is: £73.10.

Re: A world without retirement?

#67

Post by peteretep »

spangry wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do people who think a feasible UBI future is possible square with this? You have to address the revenue to pay for it, which in most places means ending preferential tax treatment of capital income. Right now, pretty much the whole world has, at any income level, heavier taxation of labor than capital (in the US, higher direct taxes coupled with employer mandates that act as additional taxes; as well as address…

The problem is that capital is mobile, and that mobility is arguably increasing due to digitisation. In other words, if a country raises tax rates on returns to capital, capital simply relocates somewhere else. I've suggested a solution above (or it might be below by now), but it's complex...

    > In other words, if a country raises
    > tax rates on returns to capital, capital
    > simply relocates somewhere else.
Certainly in the UK, money earned abroad is taxed; this is normal, rather than unusual (like, say, in Thailand, where you're only taxed on money you then bring back to Thailand). Although you can do some dodgy dealing with Non-Domicile status, this puts a kink in any simple capital flight.

Re: A world without retirement?

#68

Post by syshum »

marcosdumay wrote: post #19
simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

UBI is a redistribution expense, that means, the government takes taxes from richer people, and distribute it to everybody. Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants, and by doing so they get entitled into receiving something in proportion to what they paid. Besides it being a pyramid, a UBI scheme where total received is proportional to tota…

>UBI is a redistribution expense, that means, the government takes taxes from richer people, and distribute it to everybody.

It does not have to be. I take a Georgist view of the topic which when applied to UBI can create system based on Commons Rent.

Commons Rent would be fees on Natural Occurring Resources things like Extraction of Minerals, Forests, Fish. Fees on EM Spectrum (our current model of "selling" the EM Spectrum needs to end), geosynchronous orbits, air corridor usage (which can be very profitable in the coming age of Autonomous Drones). Pollution fees aka carbon taxes or other such fees.

Included in that would be Land Use Fees, and many other things not listed herein

It does not have to be a "take from rich, give to the poor" situation, it however does change the traditional attitude of natural resources as the marketable private property of the first person to discover them.

Re: A world without retirement?

#69

Post by ahelwer »

t0mislav wrote: post #55
edward wrote: post #53

Opposite viewpoint: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

I stil don't understand how this guy did it. Can someone explain in a few words?

If you can live on $1500/month, you only need to save up $450K-$600K and live off the 3-4% real returns in perpetuity. This quantity of savings is easily reachable within a decade by tech workers paid $100K+/yr.

In general, just take (monthly spending) * 12 * [25 or 33] to get bounds on required savings. The only other useful observation is that reducing spending is much more effective for reaching financial independence than increasing earnings, and that most spending is staggeringly wasteful and easy to forgo.

Oh, and if you manage to find a life partner with the same values and earnings - congrats, you can easily retire within five years.

Re: A world without retirement?

#70

Post by dharma1 »

spangry wrote: post #46
simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

The biggest problem, one where the trend is running in the wrong direction, is how to fund UBI. If we assume that labour will be increasingly replaced by capital in the future, then I think this ultimately comes down to the following question: how do we tax increasingly mobile capital? I'm reposting here, but it seems particularly relevant. Because of the relative (and increasing) mobility of capital, countries have…

Trump will not engineer any international agreement on corporate tax, or increase taxes on capital in general.

I am expecting a deal later this year or early next year for US corporations to be able to repatriate their overseas cash piles in exchange for significantly reduced taxes on that cash. I'm guessing a majority chunk will end up in share repurchasing and M&A activity rather than job creation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeharpaz/2017/02/06/inside-tru...

Post reply on HN