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

221–229 of 229 posts

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#221

Post by codingmyway »

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…

A better approach might be to just stop them acquiring the things that ordinary folks need in a bid becoming rentier parasites, namely homes.

In a world where food is abundant (for now) that's what keeps everyone else poor. Limit their ability to become greedy landlords and they'll be forced to invest in real businesses and take risks.

This can be started on a local level and enforced easily by only allowing people who live in the homes or community trusts or government to own them.

If some billionaire owns 10 ferraris, has millions in offshore accounts and a super yacht why should anyone else care? It's not taking away from anyone and creates demand for luxuries that wouldn't otherwise exist and create jobs.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#222

Post by common_ »

sol_remmy wrote: post #141
common_ wrote: 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.

I'm not American, and I'm not middle class. Thanks.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#223

Post by vorotato »

crusso wrote: post #126
vorotato wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that were true then we could sue this USA company for breach of contract (the Constitution) whereby the company was never authorized to own all the land or use its corporate power to attract more occupants.

Well you can, but the court system is also owned by the same corporation. Monopolies are a pain aren't they....

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#224

Post by devdas »

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…

Have only wealth tax. Require everything to be marked to market for tax reasons.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#225

Post by fulminatorz68 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #118
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.

I'd suggest the same (perspective) to you. I understand fully what you are trying to say but this world is not about pity and never has been. It is about making the best of things and helping who you can as you can while remaining sane.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#226

Post by pnutjam »

aaronchall wrote: post #107
pnutjam wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The discussion is about the merits of raising taxes and this user derailed a large part, probably the only part most people will read, into a discussion on how we could or could not tax the wealthy.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#227

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

chimeracoder wrote: post #31
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #22

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…

The lower the efficiency of a system the higher employment and the more capital is spread around, making everyone better but making it very difficult to aggregate wealth.

Public infrastructure is exactly that...public. It is isn't taxed.

More money would be available for loans with higher velocity. Venture capital already has extremely high velocity...that's why it is even possible for extreme high risk investing to be profitable in the first place.

Where the penalty would be applied to businesses, banks, investment firms sitting on CASH or near cash assets doing nothing. Put those assets to work or tax the hell out of it.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#228

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95
chimeracoder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No economist would tell you that a high velocity of money is an inherent good You may be confusing money and capital. Money velocity is almost always good. If someone buys infrastructure bonds and then those proceeds are spent on contractors to build infrastructure (who in turn pay suppliers and employees) you have lots of money moving with velocity.

I think I'm the one that made the confusing statement to begin with.

Your clarification is more in line with what I meant.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#229

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

bmelton wrote: post #33
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #22

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.

Define "hold capital". Most capital held in banks ends up helping the velocity of money because it's used for loans. If we tax the hell out of money stored in banks, banks will have less reserve, which reduces the fraction of which they can lend, which means your average joe has less access to loans for their cars, maybe their first house, a small business, etc. Past that, if it's expensive to hold money in America,…

Which is why I say tax ALL holdings of people operating in the US. Foreign AND domestic. A few countries already do that.

The idea is to with as much force as can be brought to bear get money to move into investments that hire people instead of just accrue capital gains.

An investment that puts people to work and generates 10% is much better than an investment in a fund that generates 10% in cap gains. Same gain, vastly different outcomes.

Post reply on HN