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

When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#51

Post by Frondo »

neonhomer wrote: post #6
sharemywin wrote: post #3

I'm not sure why so many people look up to the rich. They fail at kinder-garden. I have to work very hard to help my 4 year old to understand how to share. If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I've been using weight watchers lately and keep score with the right system helps a lot.

> If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich are using the same score and since they are "losing" they hate the rich. If we all stop using money as the score we'd all be better off.

My friends and I would like to pay our rent and buy our food and maintain our cars with the thing you propose we keep score with, instead of money.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#52

Post by maxerickson »

imglorp wrote: post #45
4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever; if you tax e.g. 20% of earnings ,do you believe people who earn $30k a year are impacted the same way as people earning $200k or more? Sure, those who earn more pay more, but it hits them in "extra" earnings, while the poor are taxed on money they need to survive. A (very) progressive tax rate with a few ways of reducing the tax based on social (e.g. number of children,…

That might be oversimplifying what flat means. Suppose it's not a linear function? Pick your function to begin kicking in above the poverty line and maybe get linear above 200k. But "no loophole tax" might be a better characterization of the flat idea, yes?

It certainly isn't an oversimplification in context. The comment up the thread that raised the idea of a flat tax defined it as "everything is taxed at a single rate".

Maybe single means a complex function? I doubt it.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#53

Post by namarie »

tici_88 wrote: post #10
chollida1 wrote: post #2

I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…

"The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code." I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot. The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a signif…

A flat tax rate would put a significant, unfair burden on poorer people.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#54

Post by onion2k »

qaq wrote: post #15

I think the thing we keep forgetting is if "everyone" makes more the only thing that is going to change is housing and food prices and you will gain 0.

If everyone makes $10,000 a year more then rich people will barely notice. Poor people would be able to afford to heat their homes and buy insurance. I think everyone who's poor would consider that much a gain.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#55

Post by JSONwebtoken »

maxxxxx wrote: post #24
tici_88 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code." I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot. The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a signif…

In what way would a flat tax rate close loopholes? I hear that all the time but it doesn't make sense. In the end the problem with taxes is determining what counts as taxable income. The flat tax doesn't change this. As of now it would just be another huge tax cut for high incomes which in my opinion it's designed for.

Exactly, a flat tax society would end up being a cash-under-the-table society.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#56

Post by baursak »

tici_88 wrote: post #10
chollida1 wrote: post #2

I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…

"The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code." I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot. The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a signif…

> I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot.

Flat tax rate has nothing to do with the loopholes, those are completely orthogonal. You could as well say "a simple progressive tax rate ...".

If you meant to say 1) close all loopholes, and 2) implement flat tax rate, then OK, but those are still two different things. In that case, what's wrong with 1) close all loopholes, and 2) leave the progressive tax rate?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#57

Post by namarie »

inetknght wrote: post #19
jrimbault wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then we'd have to redo/relearn the last millenium of why we do the things the way we do them.

Is that such a bad idea?

It is if you think not every moment in the last millenium was pleasant for everyone.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#58

Post by [deleted] »

imglorp wrote: post #45
4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever; if you tax e.g. 20% of earnings ,do you believe people who earn $30k a year are impacted the same way as people earning $200k or more? Sure, those who earn more pay more, but it hits them in "extra" earnings, while the poor are taxed on money they need to survive. A (very) progressive tax rate with a few ways of reducing the tax based on social (e.g. number of children,…

That might be oversimplifying what flat means. Suppose it's not a linear function? Pick your function to begin kicking in above the poverty line and maybe get linear above 200k. But "no loophole tax" might be a better characterization of the flat idea, yes?

[deleted]

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#59

Post by jrimbault »

wyager wrote: post #50
jrimbault wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then we'd have to redo/relearn the last millenium of why we do the things the way we do them.

The modern progressive income tax system is not even remotely a millennium old. We didn't even have income taxes in the US until 1861, and they weren't generally applied until 1913.

Because History started when the US began and there was no financial system before and nobody ever learned anything before.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#60

Post by cbcoutinho »

mrob wrote: post #32
cbcoutinho wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a flat tax rate avoid the unfortunate reality of burdening the poor with relatively high taxes? Tax brackets, in theory, mitigate this by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income individuals and families. A flat tax rate would surely simplify things, but I'm not convinced it would be the best solution.

A flat tax (eg. land tax + sales taxes, which are harder to manipulate than income tax) can be used to fund a universal basic income, which automatically gives you a smooth progressive tax system with no weird breakpoints setting up inefficient incentives.

I was under the impression that by flat tax you meant flat income tax. Property taxes are, at least in California, a very local form of taxes that finance local school districts. Using property taxes for something else (ie, to provide UBI for anyone not living in the direct school district) would be a large change in how those funds are distributed.
Post reply on HN