71–80 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California's Bay Area there are people sleeping under bridges a few steps from houses that cost millions of dollars.
So burn the houses and make everyone homeless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also raise taxes on investment income and implement a land value tax.
I like the idea of progressive property tax rates. Figure out the median property value, make the first 50% of that tax free. Then the next 50% is taxed at the previous rates. Then tax values above that enough to make up for it. Could apply the same idea to land value taxes too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also raise taxes on investment income and implement a land value tax.
I like the idea of progressive property tax rates. Figure out the median property value, make the first 50% of that tax free. Then the next 50% is taxed at the previous rates. Then tax values above that enough to make up for it. Could apply the same idea to land value taxes too.
And if so, how does this get applied to corporations and REITs? Do they get taxed out of existence, or do their holdings get apportioned to individual shareholders and included in their personal portfolio, so that individual progressive schedules are applied to each portion?
It seems unlikely to me that you can construct a sound set of rules for this that are workable (no glaring loopholes) and appreciably different from a progressive wealth tax, which might be much easier to formulate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument against that would be that you can give your kid a luxurious cushion, you just don't get to give him 1000x what the average person would need. Keeping your kid safe from pretty much anything you went through doesn't require 80 billion dollars.
Why not? This seems arbitrary. If I earned it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
I think your comment is more about the right to self-determination and touches on the topic of what wealth itself means (i.e., having a good education is of value; whether it cost a lot of money or not).
I guess one should not take HN comments too personally or seriously...
The problem with inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc. is that they erode the meaning of ownership and permanence. For example, if I as a parent want to save up and give up my immediate gratification from spending that money so my children have a head start or even a luxurious cushion, what’s wrong with that? That’s me spending my utility the way I want. With property taxes, ownership turns into renting - you never…
Ownership is a human invention. You can't take it with you, you're only ever really leasing it, and to the degree that you distribute it, what you're actually exercising is power to get other people do what you want (or delegating that power). Ownership will exist for as long as there's support in governance and law for it. If ownership doesn't deliver enough benefit for the majority in society, then expect society t…
What’s more, in many cases—like Egyptian pharaohs—the wealth was only inherited and not earned by way of creating anything except through maybe war and conquest.
The difference in perspective seems fundamental. Wonder if there’s been more vigorous research on the subject.
The article mentions globalization but doesn't view inequality through a global lens. If you look only within rich nations, yes inequality has increased, because the poor and blue collar middle class have lost a lot of jobs to poorer countries. But that phenomenon is actually reducing inequality as measured from a global view. The biggest issue I have with the article is that it ignores the geopolitical trends that w…
>If you look only within rich nations, yes inequality has increased, because the poor and blue collar middle class have lost a lot of jobs to poorer countries. But that phenomenon is actually reducing inequality as measured from a global view. How is that reducing inequality worldwide situation? Those foreign workers may be closer to the middle classes in rich nations, but the rich are getting further ahead
As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. I am conflicted about this way of trying to solve the problem. Also, this is assuming the tax money gets used efficiently and not to the advantage of the t…
In addition, many countries have much lower taxes on capital gains compared to other types of income, which is another factor that favors further concentration of money with those people that already have a lot of money.
The article mentions globalization but doesn't view inequality through a global lens. If you look only within rich nations, yes inequality has increased, because the poor and blue collar middle class have lost a lot of jobs to poorer countries. But that phenomenon is actually reducing inequality as measured from a global view. The biggest issue I have with the article is that it ignores the geopolitical trends that w…
So it's OK to fuck over a large portion of your own population because it's trickling down to a poor country? The issue is that nations have a duty to their own citizens, good luck telling an entire generation that they need to make sacrifices for others while the rich keep getting richer.
As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. I am conflicted about this way of trying to solve the problem. Also, this is assuming the tax money gets used efficiently and not to the advantage of the t…
The middle class is not subject to Federal Estate taxes. The exemptions are $11MM and $22MM if the estate first passed to a spouse. Neither of those are middle class amounts of wealth.