Live data from Hacker News

Taxation of Carried Interest

avc.com

71–80 of 306 posts

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#71
post #54

The correct solution to this problem is to abolish the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income (ie wages), and abolish the corporate income tax that justifies the "double taxation" argument that justifies the capital gains rate. Capital gains is why Mitt Romney can make 200 times as much as I do in a year, and pay half my effective tax rate. This is broad across the economy. It's a fundamentally immoral…

Problem is that capital gains aren’t all gains, they include inflation. I’m all for a transition to ordinary income if you index the basis of investments to the inflation rate.

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#72
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One potential problem I see with it - when welfare, public infrastructure, country protection and other goods for all commons is outsourced to one ambiguous entity (federal government) people who paid for it the most are not getting respect for that, and instead are being called thieves and abusers of the system and that they should give more. While praise (if any) goes towards that ambiguous system. When a large don…

> people who paid for it the most If we are talking about equal sacrifice, they did not pay the most, they paid as much as anyone else. > hen someone pays a lot of money into federal treasury - nil Why should they get any praise for doing their share? Or everyone should get praise (which I support). The premise that someone is somehow superior for doing their fair share is fallacious. They are not aristocrats condesc…

> If we are talking about equal sacrifice, they did not pay the most, they paid as much as anyone else.

I am talking in absolute numbers. There is plenty of research on who is paying the most taxes. A just random result from google - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo...

" A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns)."

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#73
post #54

The correct solution to this problem is to abolish the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income (ie wages), and abolish the corporate income tax that justifies the "double taxation" argument that justifies the capital gains rate. Capital gains is why Mitt Romney can make 200 times as much as I do in a year, and pay half my effective tax rate. This is broad across the economy. It's a fundamentally immoral…

Problem is that capital gains aren’t all gains, they include inflation. I’m all for a transition to ordinary income if you index the basis of investments to the inflation rate.

Imagine how much more heated debates about the accuracy of the government CPI calculation would be if the number formed the basis of a bunch of people's tax bills. Oh man oh man!

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#74
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only point that seems unfair is point 3, which can be mollified by adjusting for inflation. If we reduce points 1 and 2 to their logical conclusion, capital gains should not be taxed at all. This is idiotic. Due to the structural advantages individuals with money have investing, you'd basically be creating a system where people with money would capture almost all of the wealth. The end goal shouldn't be the most…

> If we reduce points 1 and 2 to their logical conclusion, capital gains should not be taxed at all. This is idiotic. FWIW a great many people believe that capital gains should not be taxed at all. And while there are certainly fine arguments against that point of view, I don't think it's fair to say that "it's idiotic" when their p.o.v. is based on solid economic theory.

I'm familiar with the theory, but I think economic theories that only looks to maximize economic productivity while ignoring philosophical or ethical concerns are idiotic.

If you don't take into account what is being produced and why, you are left with a line of tautological reasoning that more productivity is good because more productivity is good.

The reason this is idiotic because there are a lot of ways to maximize productivity where the vast majority of people do not benefit. Not only that, but there is absolutely no reason that maximizing the productiveness of an economy results in maximum utility (in the philosophical sense).

Even if you could demonstrate that economic productivity was positively correlated with (philosophical) utility, you'd have absolutely no guarantee that utility would be distributed equitably. You could literally have 1 super happy person with everyone else on the planet enslaved in perpetual (productive) agony.

That's even before you get into the fact that maximizing production now probably ends up creating a hellscape of a planet tomorrow.

Of course you could argue that you can account for all of this using negative externalities. In that case you might as well tax capital gains to account for the negative externalities. I suppose you could tax something else, like lifetime earnings, but the point is I feel comfortable making the claim that not taxing capital gains is idiotic.

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#75
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sick of people complaining about pulling their weight or saying they are too important to do so The people complaining the most are those too well off for assistance and too poor to bear their responsibility comfortably. That portion of the population where it feels like you can pay health care/insurance/taxes or afford to go out to dinner one night a month instead of cooking. It’s not a fun place to be. I grew…

I've heard that. In your experience, does that match the hypothesis that it's just a tactic of the right to divide voters - turn the working class against each other (on racial and rural-urban lines too)?

I think “the right” flames it up, but my family was very liberal, even socialist, yet still felt this way. When the taxman takes so much it feels he’s stealing from your children’s mouths you’re gonna complain.

Fundamentally people in this situation, in my experience, don’t really care who is in power because they see them all as the same sort of enemy: the rich and powerful oppressing the working poor and pandering to the destitude so they look good and charitable on paper.

This is hard to imagine if you’ve never been in a situation where a 5% discount on a gallon of milk is incentive enough to go to a different supermarket for this week’s grocery run.

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#76
post #66
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees invest their time for immediate pay off (they get paid twice a month, monthly or something like that typically) So in essence, this is short-term capital gain which is taxed at the same level as regular income.

I'm sorry, I was unclear. When speaking about employees, I was talking about startup employees who take a significant % of their compensation as risky stock options. My point was about this portion of their compensation.

Aren't employees get a same long-term capital taxation treatment on profits from their shares for their risk of taking part of the company in exchange for their time?

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#77
post #76
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I was unclear. When speaking about employees, I was talking about startup employees who take a significant % of their compensation as risky stock options. My point was about this portion of their compensation.

Aren't employees get a same long-term capital taxation treatment on profits from their shares for their risk of taking part of the company in exchange for their time?

It depends. But, in general, no.

Startup employees generally get equity in the form of stock options. In order for employees to get preferential tax treatment on these options they have to exercise these options at the time they are granted (which can require a large outlay of cash) and then hold them for at least one year.

Due to the cost and risk of this exercise, most employees do not do this. Instead they wait to see if the company becomes more valuable (and liquid) and only exercise the options if so. At that point any realized gains are taxed as ordinary wage income.

There are a great many resources online on this topic if you are interested in more details.

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#78
post #54

The correct solution to this problem is to abolish the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income (ie wages), and abolish the corporate income tax that justifies the "double taxation" argument that justifies the capital gains rate. Capital gains is why Mitt Romney can make 200 times as much as I do in a year, and pay half my effective tax rate. This is broad across the economy. It's a fundamentally immoral…

Problem is that capital gains aren’t all gains, they include inflation. I’m all for a transition to ordinary income if you index the basis of investments to the inflation rate.

Isn't this accounted for with the standard deduction and marginal tax brackets?

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#79
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we reduce points 1 and 2 to their logical conclusion, capital gains should not be taxed at all. This is idiotic. FWIW a great many people believe that capital gains should not be taxed at all. And while there are certainly fine arguments against that point of view, I don't think it's fair to say that "it's idiotic" when their p.o.v. is based on solid economic theory.

I'm familiar with the theory, but I think economic theories that only looks to maximize economic productivity while ignoring philosophical or ethical concerns are idiotic. If you don't take into account what is being produced and why , you are left with a line of tautological reasoning that more productivity is good because more productivity is good. The reason this is idiotic because there are a lot of ways to maxim…

Capital gains taxes resulting in less efficient resource allocation does not imply that it is instead allocated in an ethical way, nor distributed more equitably, or any of the other notions mentioned.

Having a more efficient economy means there's a surplus that enables resources to be expended on environmental and social concerns. Hungry people don't care about those things. There's a reason poor countries tend to be the worst polluted.

Lastly, efficiency isn't about maximizing production. It's about maximizing productivity, i.e. production/cost.

Re: Taxation of Carried Interest

#80
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we reduce points 1 and 2 to their logical conclusion, capital gains should not be taxed at all. This is idiotic. FWIW a great many people believe that capital gains should not be taxed at all. And while there are certainly fine arguments against that point of view, I don't think it's fair to say that "it's idiotic" when their p.o.v. is based on solid economic theory.

I'm familiar with the theory, but I think economic theories that only looks to maximize economic productivity while ignoring philosophical or ethical concerns are idiotic. If you don't take into account what is being produced and why , you are left with a line of tautological reasoning that more productivity is good because more productivity is good. The reason this is idiotic because there are a lot of ways to maxim…

Economic theories do take into account what is produced and why. No one thinks that we should devote 90% of our economy to paperclip production even if that meant we would be producing more total stuff than otherwise. When people talk about economic efficiency they actually are talking about utility.

Economic theory can also address questions of equality. There are efficient ways to redistribute income and there are less efficient ways.

Economic theory can also address environmental questions. There are efficient ways to address resource usage and there are less efficient ways.

Philosophical and ethical concerns are indeed outside the realm of economics. That part is true (which is why I said "there are certainly fine arguments against that point of view"). But much of your rebuttal understates the range of topics than can be reasonably addressed by economics.

Post reply on HN