Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 504 posts

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#21

Post by throwaway13337 »

The argument for corporate income tax is misplaced. Many socialist countries have a low (or no) corporate income tax and that's goods.

A country shouldn't tax the things it would like to encourage. In this case, that companies re-invest and not pull the funds out to pay investors.

Capital gains tax should probably be mentioned. Why is it a much lower rate than income tax? Why not talk about that?

Strange also that the article doesn't really target one specific part of the tax code - they don't mention any loopholes at all. If they'd like to see a change, name exploits.

The article is outrage porn - not trying to inform, or make a specific change. It's simply trying to get clicks and shares.

It's really a shame to see the new york times go this route.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#22

Post by partingshots »

So since this is all 100% legal, are there resources available for people like us in the upper middle class bracket working as engineers in Silicon Valley to take advantage of all this?

Almost half of my salary goes to taxes every paycheck. That’s almost $150,000 I literally never get to see just taken away.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#23

Post by ytNumbers »

apazzolini wrote: post #12
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a lot more exemptions, deductions and credits back then so the effective tax rate was not even close to 70% and was not much higher than it is today. Not sure why this article didn't mention this at all but I can guess, coming from the New York Times and all.

Since you're so sure of your viewpoint and the NYT's bias, it should be really easy for you to go into more detail here, right? (I'm not expecting a thorough response from you, don't worry)

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#24

Post by crimsonalucard »

traderjane wrote: post #8
Synaesthesia wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I thought workers owning the means of production was communism, whereas socialism has come to mean the distribution of value to society through highly general programs.

No.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Socialism

The mistake comes from the misconception that Scandinavia is Socialist. It is not: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nordic_model

The nordic model is a welfare state with multi-level collective bargaining (think unions and corporations everywhere). Though the term welfare state sounds really really bad, they are actually doing really really well.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#25

Post by throwaway744678 »

traderjane wrote: post #8
Synaesthesia wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I thought workers owning the means of production was communism, whereas socialism has come to mean the distribution of value to society through highly general programs.

This is the current meaning of the word. But let's not forget where it comes from. Historically communists saw themselves as the true socialists (eg. USSR)

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#26

Post by merpnderp »

traderjane wrote: post #8
Synaesthesia wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I thought workers owning the means of production was communism, whereas socialism has come to mean the distribution of value to society through highly general programs.

Socialism has a real definition which means the people owning the means of production. Just because people confuse it with a welfare state doesn’t change the myriads of literature discussing this philosophy. Just shows the continued failures of our public schools to teach even basic concepts.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#27

Post by hogFeast »

fiter wrote: post #9
ggreer wrote: post #6

This article fails to account for exemptions and deductions. This post[1] by the Tax Foundation explains it: > However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. Today the 1% pay a little over 36% of their income to taxes. 1. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.

Yes, there is no explanation of exactly how that number (400) was chosen.

Given that the US is widely acknowledged to be one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, the burden of proof required here is far higher than the article attempts.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#28

Post by IggleSniggle »

partingshots wrote: post #22

So since this is all 100% legal, are there resources available for people like us in the upper middle class bracket working as engineers in Silicon Valley to take advantage of all this? Almost half of my salary goes to taxes every paycheck. That’s almost $150,000 I literally never get to see just taken away.

You do see it though. In your roads, your public libraries, educated working-class, your parks, your clean air, your safe-to-drink milk, etc etc etc

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#29

Post by xenocyon »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #7
slashdev wrote: post #2

Wow, that chart shows tax rates on the wealthy dropping from 70% to 23% in the last 70 years. Now probably 70% was too socialist and may not fly in a globalised world where is a lot easier to move to a lower tax country or state (I'd move if I had to pay that.) But this seems ridiculously tilted to the other extreme now. Edit: I don't understand the objections to my comment. If you have a problem with the data behind…

There were a lot more exemptions, deductions and credits back then so the effective tax rate was not even close to 70% and was not much higher than it is today. Not sure why this article didn't mention this at all but I can guess, coming from the New York Times and all.

Of course it's true that the effective rate was less than 70% (that was the top _marginal_ rate, just like 37% is the top marginal rate today); however I am curious to hear about the exemptions etc for rich people - my understanding is that these have gotten larger and more complex over time so it's surprising to me to hear that there were more loopholes in the 50s than today. Is there a source for this?

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#30

Post by ggreer »

fiter wrote: post #9
ggreer wrote: post #6

This article fails to account for exemptions and deductions. This post[1] by the Tax Foundation explains it: > However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. Today the 1% pay a little over 36% of their income to taxes. 1. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.

Annoyingly there is no source for the data in the article because the book that it is advertising doesn’t come out until next week. My guess is that the wealthiest 400 households don’t have much income to tax. Most of their wealth would be in investments, which if they hold on to long enough become taxed as long term capital gains (20% for the rich).
Post reply on HN