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

111–120 of 229 posts

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#111

Post by Tyrek »

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…

This is fairly limited thinking - your perception of the problem is constrained by the current status quo. What if Dividends, Income and Cap Gains shared the same tax rate? What if Trusts were not tax protected? Off-shoring is already pretty much illegal under the current tax regime, all you need to improve is enforcement rates.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#112

Post by TACIXAT »

aczerepinski wrote: post #75

The business leaders who really matter are motivated by their passion and curiosity, shaping their legacy, changing the world, etc. I don't think a personal tax rate of 90% would stop the next Steve Jobs from doing important work. If we're talking about a class of people who don't enjoy their work and won't keep at it without outsized financial incentives, I really don't think we're describing visionaries that we dep…

I dislike the myth that business leaders and entrepreneurs who are motivated by money do not matter. There are plenty of income-motivated people who are building meaningful products.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#113

Post by sharemywin »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #77
sordidasset wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What quantifiable system of keeping score is as universally applicaple as money? Money is an awful way to keep score on a global scale, but it seems to be the best we have.

What does the score of money measure?

I think that's the point. It's a great way to trade trinkets. It's an ok system for other things. It's horrible for tracking role models and life work. Taxes are a "quick fix"

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#114

Post by jghn »

technofiend wrote: post #88
jghn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the last 5 years my salary has doubled, so I suppose I can look at this thought experiment pretty objectively. The short answer is that you're right but so are they. I am happier, but not as happy as I thought I'd be because my expenses have also increased. Also, beyond increased expenses the horizon of what is possible has also improved and those things are more expensive. So yes, there's all of that. But as i…

If I can presume to summarize your thoughts which coincidentally line up with mine: "Happiness increases with income, but not linearly."

Yep, that's a better tl;dr than the one I tried to give before I rambled off.

That and confirming the aspect the person I was replying to had mentioned where as income increases one tends to change the goalposts.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#116

Post by naravara »

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.

Oh so all we need to do is eliminate the principle of Federalism and govern the entire country as one large state then?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#117

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

As CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt earned $17,744,236 last year.

GE has 330,000 employees.

If Immelt decided to take $0 and share his income equally with the remaining GE employees, he'd increase each worker's income by $53.77 per year. That's not going to do much to close either the wealth or income gaps.

Part of what we are seeing is simply that corporations are getting so much larger than they've ever been in history. Therefore, the pay granted to the CEO is for he or she to oversee larger and larger groups of people.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#118

Post by JustSomeNobody »

fulminatorz68 wrote: post #21

Hard to make $$ in a country that worships established wealth without getting into the old boys club. You can make great money with a good idea but working two jobs for 170K gets old.

Probably not as old as working 2 jobs for 17K. Perspective.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#119

Post by TACIXAT »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #82
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.

A reduction in housing and food prices would be a net gain for society, and would in turn reduce crime rates and healthcare costs

They are not saying those prices would reduce. There would be more people with more money competing for the same housing pool, landlords would raise their prices accordingly. I'm not sure if it would have the same effect on food, but it would likely increase housing prices.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#120

Post by ameister14 »

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.

Wouldn't that remove the incentive for investment over speculation?
Post reply on HN