Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan • Hacker News Board

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#71

Post by LyndsySimon » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

wafflesraccoon wrote: post #27

bigfartchili wrote: post #14

I openly admit I am a republican but I have never understood why there are not more tax brackets. A person making 100k per year is not even close to the same as a person making 100m per year but are taxed at the same rate.

I've never really understood why there are brackets in the first place, can't we just write a function to calculate your taxes based off your total income?

What we have now is effectively "a function to calculate your taxes based off your total income" - it's just that the function treats different portions of income differently.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#72

Post by InitialLastName » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #59

L_Rahman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people. If this seems radical, notice that this is already part of the American social contract. We already tax people to provide services and invest in long term projects. All this does is change the rates and the allocation direction.

> "Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people." Ok, well here is a department of the government I am familiar with admitting they waste $25-30 billion every year (imo that is an underestimate, but they definitely waste over 50% of their funding on worthless stuff): https://nihr…

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research. As long as the research that was useful produced enough value to justify the system (which, in the case of the NIH I'd venture it does), it's worth doing overall.

This reminds me of the Wanamaker quote: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half”.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#73

Post by LyndsySimon » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #55

pmdulaney wrote: post #44

What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? I wouldn't feel nearly so uneasy about taxing the ultra-rich at 70% if the majority of them were in favor of it.

> What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? Similarly, we should also require that regulations on industry be approved by the regulated industry, and that criminal punishments be ratified by those who are guilty of the specific crime.

Are you really comparing "earning over $x in a year" with "guilty of a specific crime"?

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#74

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

pmdulaney wrote: post #44

What if we were to have an amendment to the Constitution such that income taxes for each income group would have to be approved by a plebiscite of those actually IN that income group? I wouldn't feel nearly so uneasy about taxing the ultra-rich at 70% if the majority of them were in favor of it.

[deleted]

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#75

Post by sp332 » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #20

She cites Lincoln and FDR as evidence that radical ideas can be good ones. But "there have been radical ideas that have been good" does not imply " this radical idea is a good one". Her idea may in fact be good, but on this point, her logic does not work. As for the idea itself: IIRC, there seem to be significant second-order effects that keep the federal government's income at 18-22% of GDP, no matter what the tax r…

Actually someone else called her radical. That quote was just her brush-off of the comment.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#76

Post by nonbel » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #69

nonbel wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The US GDP was $17.5 trillion last year. I don't think you're looking at the right numbers." I don't follow. Why do you think GDP is the "right number" instead of tax revenue?

You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either. My point was you need to look at capital gains and business taxes to get an idea of how much money there is available. Wealth is not relevant and personal income is not the whole picture.

>"You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either."

Yea, I guess you are correct. I just consider adding to the national debt another form of tax (via inflation).

>"My point was you need to look at capital gains and business taxes to get an idea of how much money there is available."

Still not following. I am concerned with the government spending a very large amount per year. Spending these resources more efficiently seems like low hanging fruit vs just raising taxes on whatever. The idea of confiscating the wealth of the ultra rich is just to demonstrate that they really aren't that rich compared to what the US government is spending.

So if the actual desired outcome was to get, eg this climate project done, then I would expect people to be exploring that option. Plus increased efficiency should be better for the climate...

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#77

Post by tracker1 » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #15

I applaud ambitious efforts and I'm open to raising taxes for the very rich (albeit easy for me to say down here in the middle class), but AOC doesn't strike be as competent in the slightest (although as her supporters are so fond of rationalizing, she's not the least competent public official). She has charisma, which is an important leadership quality, but not much else as far as I can tell. Certainly not the perso…

I'm not... I've seen enough government operations that you cannot convince me that additional taxation is necessary vs. reducing excess spending and bureaucracy.

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#78

Post by LyndsySimon » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

Here's what I don't understand - the US emits in the range of 15-20% of the world's total carbon emissions. If we were to reduce that by 20% (which would be a huge undertaking), we're talking about a 4% worldwide decrease at most. In order for any drastic change to happen, the US cannot do it alone.

Therefore, domestic policy is not the place where a real impact can be made. It's a foreign policy matter, and something that can really only be accomplished through treaties and the like.

China's contribution to carbon emissions is approximately twice the US's. Trump wants to threaten to harm China's economy through tariffs. Why not combine those two goals and craft legislation so that tariffs are set on a sliding scale based on the origin nation's total carbon emissions?

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#79

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #70

L_Rahman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people. If this seems radical, notice that this is already part of the American social contract. We already tax people to provide services and invest in long term projects. All this does is change the rates and the allocation direction.

> Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people. That simplistic logic fails to account for the fact that pursuing income is an incentive to allocate resources to productive investments that are self-sufficient and pay off tons of taxes directly and indirextly, such as by paying s…

[deleted]

Re: Ocasio-Cortez Says 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

#80

Post by tracker1 » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43

bigfartchili wrote: post #14

I openly admit I am a republican but I have never understood why there are not more tax brackets. A person making 100k per year is not even close to the same as a person making 100m per year but are taxed at the same rate.

Hmm. Maybe use a log scale? Every factor of 10 in income, the incremental tax rate goes up a percent or three. If 35% is the top now, and starts at $100K (numbers made up because I refuse to grovel through the IRS code in order to make an HN post), and if the delta is 3% per factor of 10, then we get 38% at $1M, 41% at $10M, 44% at $100M, 47% at $1B (income, per year). I'll stop there, because I'm not sure anyone has…

The problem is that enough types of activity are excluded from taxation. It would be better to have a 0.25% margin tax on all financial transactions or currency transfers. Nobody could avoid it, and some of the micro-trades wouldn't happen as much.

Yes, then you still have the cash loophole, but most people aren't using cash.