For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke • Hacker News Board

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#11

Post by avoutthere » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

subjectHarold wrote: post #6

I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs). Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a…

No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#12

Post by mikeash » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

subjectHarold wrote: post #6

I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs). Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a…

I think you need a longer answer than this, because the marginal rate was indisputably higher than this before.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#13

Post by mikeash » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

avoutthere wrote: post #11

subjectHarold wrote: post #6

I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs). Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a…

No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.

We were on track to pay off the debt 20 years ago. The debt is substantially higher now but nothing has fundamentally changed.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#14

Post by flavmartins » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #10

chrisco255 wrote: post #2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…

Honest question: if people like the one described in the article won't actually end up paying more in taxes due to an increase in their tax rate, why do they oppose it?

The answer is likely quite simple.

Because allowing for one idea would lead into another.

70% tax is a start. Not the end. The idea is to find where the "excess" income is taking place and add additional taxes in that area to direct the income into investment and services.

70% may be a start at ordinary income. But does it apply to investments? And then what's next?

I think the key question for Dell and others is: can you show proof that the current approach of lower taxes boost the average individual income of workers? Because right now we're seeing great numbers from Wall Street, but wages are still virtually flat year over year. How does the Dow continue to climb but workers' pay stay the same?

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#15

Post by foolfoolz » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #10

chrisco255 wrote: post #2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…

Honest question: if people like the one described in the article won't actually end up paying more in taxes due to an increase in their tax rate, why do they oppose it?

because this Hausers law shows that the U.S. government doesn't have a revenue problem, it's collecting proportionately the same amount of money as it has been. there' a spending problem: we keep finding more and more ways to spend money.

this whole green new deal proposal is "lets go spend billions more dollars on XYZ" a lot of the mental pushback is what are you going to stop spending on today to pay for it? the answer: "nothing, we're just going to raise taxes"

i believe opposition to this is less about can the 1% afford the taxes or not, and more for principled spending

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#16

Post by chrisco255 » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

flavmartins wrote: post #14

saghm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: if people like the one described in the article won't actually end up paying more in taxes due to an increase in their tax rate, why do they oppose it?

The answer is likely quite simple. Because allowing for one idea would lead into another. 70% tax is a start. Not the end. The idea is to find where the "excess" income is taking place and add additional taxes in that area to direct the income into investment and services. 70% may be a start at ordinary income. But does it apply to investments? And then what's next? I think the key question for Dell and others is: ca…

Wage growth is not flat:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45448323

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#17

Post by headmelted » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

I see where people are coming from when they dismiss high marginal rates out of hand, without giving the honest answer as to why:

No-one who is caught by them will pay them.

If I'm Michael Dell, and my marginal rate is 70%, or 90% or even 100% (whatever) then I'm incentivized to take that money in another way, be it in stock, deferred bonuses, or even in leaving the capital in the business without issuing a dividend.

The reason this is such a problem is that regardless of whether you manage to close every conceivable loophole, you're still talking about personal taxes. The corporation is making the lion's share of the money, and that's where the tax would need to be applied to raise the revenues required by the Green New Deal.

Thing is, that's never worked for a state because the biggest companies are multi-national corporations that can (and do) shift their taxable income to the most favourable jurisdictions, which is why nation states keep trying to undercut each other on CT rates (Apple and Google are notorious for the lengths they go to in order to avail of this, for example). The state can't close that kind of loophole because it doesn't have the authority to (unless it goes down the road of sanctioning other countries due to their tax rates).

I've not seen a solution to wealth distribution yet that acknowledges that we exist in a global economy, regardless of local policies (however well intentioned they are).

Thing is, most people don't really seem to want wealth re-distribution to anyone poorer than them. Unless you're planning to pay a living wage to everyone in India/Thailand/China/wherever then why shouldn't they undercut your taxation rates as much as is needed to attract local jobs?

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#18

Post by GoodJokes » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

avoutthere wrote: post #11

subjectHarold wrote: post #6

I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs). Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a…

No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.

Debt isn’t a problem in reality. Especially as the world’s reserve currency. If that ever becomes not the case, we’ll the whole monetary system will be touched. I would google modern monetary theory. I think that is the future more or less.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#19

Post by Matticus_Rex » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #13

avoutthere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.

We were on track to pay off the debt 20 years ago. The debt is substantially higher now but nothing has fundamentally changed.

The difference between what it takes to pay down a moderate debt and what it takes to pay down a truly massive debt is a fundamental difference.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#20

Post by wombatpm » Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

avoutthere wrote: post #11

subjectHarold wrote: post #6

I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs). Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a…

No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.

According to https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n1/v75n1p1.html we reached peak social security surplus back around 2008, and cross the line into deficit real soon now. So instead of having extra revenue that can be spent, the budget now has to take into account redemptions of special social security bonds to fund current operations. From the Social Security Administrations perspective they have years of funding because of the trust fund. From a congressional perspective its a double hit to the budget No Surplus + have to pay back redemptions now.

So this was a wonderful time to give a trillion dollar tax cut to corporations.

I do not know how you reduce the size of the state with the baby boom bubble entering retirement. The paranoid part of me thinks the secret solution will be a 1918 Influenza resurgence that disproportionately takes out people over 70. Solves Social Security and Medicare expenditure at the federal level and the pension problem at the state and local level.