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

101–110 of 229 posts

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#101

Post by SoMisanthrope »

What the article fails to mention is that, when top marginal rate was 91%, there were an infinite number of deductions that you could take. Any expense that was even-slightly business-related was booked as a personal expense and deducted.

I recognize that the majority of people on HN are progressives. So, I encourage you to think beyond your personal prejudices and recognize that our tax code stifles productivity and innovation. It's neither moral nor appropriate to work the 6 months of every year to pay the government, just to have the privilege of working the last 6 months of the year to try to pay your bills. Frankly, it's insane.

A flat tax is moral and would eliminate all of the monkey business (read: wasted productivity) that takes place, relative to tax planning.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#103

Post by sharemywin »

Frondo wrote: post #51
neonhomer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not arguing against money. I'm saying if you have excess your going to personally get more out of sharing it than hoarding it as some number. And if your looking for role models "greedy hoarders" (not all rich people) might not be a good role model.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#104

Post by flexie »

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…

That is just tax defeatism :-)

The rich do pay some tax so it's not impossible to get them to pay and rich people in different countries pay different percentages of their overall wealth. So it's by no means impossible to make them pay more, if that is what society desires.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#105

Post by ch4s3 »

tici_88 wrote: post #83
shortstuffsushi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the flat tax actually tax though, income? Wouldn't they just dodge that then by not having income? Sure, for you and me it would make it easier -- my W2 says I made exactly 100k, here's exactly 50k of it, period. For people who have a flexible income, why report any amount that would make you pay in?

The idea is to have everything taxed at the same rate: income, dividends, capital gains, whatever. So every source of 'money coming in' gets treated and taxed the same way. By having a flat tax it doesn't make sense to shift 'money in' under different categories because all gets taxed the same rate. So for example, income, capital gains, dividends would all be taxed at 10% or 15% or whatever.

Then why not hold stock, realize no gains by not selling it, and take out a loan with stock as collateral. Or, you could leave it all in a company that you own, draw no income and have the company pay for your housing, meals, travel, etc.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#106

Post by cpursley »

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #85
cpursley wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever Tell this to the nations which have successfully implemented a flat tax: http://www.economist.com/node/3860731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_f... It's ironic that a number of former Soviet countries have moved on to the flat tax, while the west has a progressive income tax (#2 plank of the Communist Manifesto).

Idk about you but I can't think of many former soviet block countries that have a healthy distribution of wealth between working, middle, and upper classes. Furthermore the list of countries given there are not places where you want to be poor.

I don't disagree. These countries often have systemic issues that go deeper than any one tax system can resolve.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#107

Post by aaronchall »

pnutjam wrote: post #79
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…

Good job torpedoing this discussion, I hope you get a bonus from your "think tank". None of your points should preclude us from doing something, you'd have us just throw up our hands and say "aw shucks, those rich fella's are just too smart."

"torpedoing"? What was this discussion supposed to be about?

Why do you assume this user is in a "think tank"?

What's wrong with being financially successful, aside from the fact that you either aren't or are pandering to people who aren't?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#108

Post by sandworm101 »

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…

Much of this could be solved by switching from an income-based approach to one based on increase in.net worth. We shouldnt care whether income is realized or not in a given period. If someone is now worth more than yesturday, that difference is taxable income. Such an approach would eliminate the need for a great many rules.

(With standard policy-based exemptions such as tbe rise in value one one's primary residence etc)

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#109

Post by openasocket »

chirau wrote: post #72
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,…

A "flat rate" can also be tiered. In this case I'd take it to mean a flat rate on all money earned during a time period. Whether income or capital gains, dividends, assets or whatever, you are still giving up x% of whatever you earned that year. So even when tiered, a person earning under some amount in total might get a lower tax rate than a person earning a higher amount but it is still flat. The "flat tax" would b…

Wait, how do you make the flat tax tiered? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#110

Post by SoMisanthrope »

vorotato wrote: post #91
computerwizard wrote: post #40

Taxation is theft.

Counterpoint, taxation is the money you pay to the corporation called the USA for the ability to work and live in land they own. They then use that money to make the land more appealing attracting more occupants.

Your comment is so deeply flawed. But it reflects a generalized misunderstanding of what U.S. federalism is about. The government doesn't own the land, the people do. The government was supposed to support and defend the personal rights to property and personal assets, which are the fundamental resources of commerce.

Socialism has failed everywhere that it has been tried.

Post reply on HN