Live data from Hacker News

When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

nytimes.com

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#141
post #67

There is only one real tax on the wealthy: a revolution in which all property rights are reset. Everything else is a war between the wealthy themselves to redistribute things in their favor.

And there you sit with probably $50k-100k in assets while the average African has less than one thousand dollars.

If you truly wanted the "revolution" to be fair, then all the money would go to third world countries and you'd be left with $3000. But nope, you actually want to be allowed to steal from the rich so you can live an American middle class life without having to work.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#142

I wonder how many more jobs would actually be created if CEOs pay was funneled into R&D or expansion or how many job cuts would have been avoided through the years

In 2016 GE (for example) spent 5.5 billion on R&D. Their CEO Jeffrey Immelt made about 20 million.

I don't think a 0.363% increase in the R&D budget would make much of a difference.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could tax holdings in the US or by US citizens instead of earnings, then. Make it expensive to hold capital. Capital in motion and at a high velocity is generally good for everyone. Capital at rest serves very few and is very harmful to everyone else.

> Capital in motion and at a high velocity is generally good for everyone. Capital at rest serves very few and is very harmful to everyone else. This is dangerously wrong. No economist would tell you that a high velocity of money is an inherent good, or even that increasing the velocity of money is an unfettered good. Public infrastructure, mortgages, venture capital, small business loans - all of these are investmen…

Piketty argues we need a low worldwide universal capital tax. At the very least one of the advantages would be to have a census of wealth, just like we have for income.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#144
post #69
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying it will always be possible to murder someone so there is no point in trying to curb chemical weapons sales to children. Every loop closed makes tax evasion harder and riskier. There will always be people who do it, like there will always be people killing other people, but it is worth making it hard and risky enough that most people will consider other solutions before resorting to murder/tax evasi…

Tax evasion is illegally not paying the taxes that are due. If you are taking advantages of legal loopholes, it is not tax evasion.

Yes, it's Tax Avoidance and it's every bit as despicable. Often it goes hand in hand with Regulatory Capture, where corporations pay money to corrupt legislators (I know, a redundant statement) to get the loopholes only they can use inserted into law on the sly.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#145
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…

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,…

You would do a flat tax on anything above X, where X is essentially a number calculated on base living costs in your area for the number of people in your household. Anything above X is taxed at a flat rate. This ensures people can afford to live and meet their minimum requirements. It also makes it so that the tax code is extremely simple.

For me personally - I would add one more change that most people don't like. I would put an actual cap on total income tax that can be paid in a single year. The reason for this is that these progressive systems act as a social welfare system that transfer money. That's why people propose a flat tax. Well, flat tax is much better but still presents the possibility for a wealthy person to pay, for example, 200k in income tax in a year. A lot of people would say "so what?". Well, I believe income tax shouldn't be treated as a maximum pain threshold. The basis of taxation is to fund public goods. We all consume roughly the same amount of public services on average. If someone is paying something like 200k a year in income tax they are paying way, way above anything they could possibly consume in public goods/services for that year.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#146

"The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts [...] was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy [...] The first half of that theory may well have come true. Many of the world’s most successful companies are American — not only Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, but also Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson and JPMorgan Chase." The article fails to mention that even when the tax code was 90% on the highest e…

> So increasing tax rate beyond a couple of millions a year, or even before, seems a no-brainer to me, at least until everybody gets healthcare and free education. How much money do you think that will take? I'm willing to bet your estimate is too low by a factor of 100. I've known multiple family friends who have easily used $500k+ a piece in government healthcare.

At the current American rates probably, but in countries with universal healthcare the costs are not ridiculously inflated by a Byzantine system.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#147
post #81
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax evasion is illegally not paying the taxes that are due. If you are taking advantages of legal loopholes, it is not tax evasion.

What if you make the rules so simple that there are NO loopholes and there is no/little possibility for tax avoidance?

Because most loopholes are in fact deductions that are there for a reason.

The overall tax rate is too high (or it would be too expensive to lower the overall rate), so politicians give certain people sweetheart deals on certain things because they consider it relevant, thus offering someone, somewhere a tax break. Others are then free to use the same deduction for their benefit.

The wealthy aren't stupid. They're generally quite pragmatic and flexible when it comes to making money.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying that flat tax is good, but that all countries that have implemented it coincidentally have other economic issues that are wholly unrelated?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#150
post #10

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 disregards the way our society pools resources to give the OPPORTUNITY to all to build a business. A flat tax acts as if the business owner who runs trucks over roads paid for by all is not getting a huge advantage by living in a country (the USA) where all taxpayers pool money to make these OPPORTUNITIES available.

The huge advantages that come to a member of this country are disregarding and ignored by proponents of a flat tax. The flat tax is a huge giveaway to the rich. Should not happen.

Post reply on HN