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

61–70 of 504 posts

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

#61

Post by devicetray0 »

ASTP001 wrote: post #44
tartoran wrote: post #3

That is correct, the rich don't pay any taxes at all (whenever the can). The was a recent thread on HN regarding tax audits [0]. What I got from that is that the IRS cannot afford to audit the rich because their taxes are complicated and they don't have enough resources to do so. They choose to audit the poor instead because, it is simpler.. link [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176705

Would it help to start a fund specific to this purpose? I'd imagine there would be significant ROI on it, in the big picture sense. Relevant Article: https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/09/the-rise-of-public-sect...

A fund? To what, pay the IRS to target specific individuals? After the IRS targeting controversy [0], I would highly doubt the IRS would accept that money.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

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

#62

Post by harimau777 »

therwey wrote: post #39
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.

Takes home $150k. Has access to world-class infrastructure and public services. Complains. Sounds about right.

Depending on location, that could still be low enough that it's difficult to own a home.

Edit: Oops, misread that 150k was before taxes. 150k after taxes should be enough to own a home

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

#63

Post by wffurr »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #28
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

You also see it in the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers that drop bombs on civilians in other countries, the global surveillance system, military aid to despotic regimes with no regard to human rights, the border guards that imprison children and harass travelers.

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

#65

Post by vonmoltke »

ivalm wrote: post #38
refurb wrote: post #19

What a shit article. It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. What you should really look at is real effective tax rates by income level.[1] What you'll find is that the top 1% make 19% of all income, but pay 37% of all taxes, with an average tax rate of 27%. The bottom 50% earn 11% of all income, but only…

The graph in article is effective, not marginal. The poorest do pay less in absolute numbers because they are poor, that's a statement of income inequality, not progressivity of the tax rate.

> The graph in article is effective, not marginal.

The article is not very clear on that, and there is nothing to indicate such on the plot itself (which will be taken out-of-context at some point).

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

#66

Post by hogFeast »

Oh boy, I can see how this ends.

The US already has a very progressive system. The aim here appears to be: increase govt spending. Okay, the only way to do that (looking at other countries that have high shares of govt spending to GDP) is to reduce, not increase, the progressiveness of the tax system.

The quantum of "taxes were higher in the past" is utterly wrong. They were marginally higher in the past but not by much (the big step change was JFK, then Reagan, then back up through Clinton)...how does the author even think govt gets paid for? Revenues are not swinging wildly all over the place.

If you are worried about middle-class income growth, it is worth asking how their income growth has been so low given that a huge chunk of people pay no tax at all and the middle-class pay substantially less than almost anywhere else. That is the truly concerning thing about progressive tax systems, how do you pay for stuff when most people don't pay tax? And the political response to taxation is always: "someone else will pay for my stuff...someone else!!!".

A global minimum corporation tax rate of 25% is ludicrous. I remember talking to a fund manager who talked regularly to Peter Oppenheimer about Apple's offshore cash...the solution, according to the genius Peter, was just for all the countries in the world to just make their tax systems equal to the US...easy...and then the problem would be solved. What is extraordinary about the charlatanism of the article is that the author actually thinks this view is logical. Apple just believed it so they didn't have to pay tax...but this is apparently someone's logical view...2019

Tangent: the US has gone way down the path of "economics and politics as objective science"...this has led to a host of people battering other people with apparently "logical" but totally impractical "solutions". Common-sense thinking and understanding history (i.e. what people have actually done in similar situations) is useful info that would help here.

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

#67

Post by mcv »

ggreer wrote: post #36
Synaesthesia wrote: post #5

There’s so much that could be done if we taxed the ultra rich and huge corporations just a little bit more, and more effectively.

They would just renounce their US citizenship and move to a country with lower taxes. That’s what Eduardo Saverin did.

They didn't do that in the 1950s, though.

It does address an important point, though: should you pay tax based on where you live, or on where your income comes from? Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc. For foreign companies to profit from that healthy market but not pay taxes there, seems wrong. Similarly, for people to work in a healthy labour market but not pay taxes there seems equally wrong. These things result in a race to bottom to attract rich people and corporations that make their money elsewhere.

Instead, I think it would be better if income and profit were taxed more based on where it comes from, making tax havens irrelevant. But I have no idea how practical that is.

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

#68

Post by apazzolini »

ytNumbers wrote: post #23
apazzolini wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

See the rest of the comments on this post to understand why this link isn't useful in the discussion of taxes on the top 0.01%, which is the subject of the parent article.

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

#69

Post by rtkwe »

refurb wrote: post #19

What a shit article. It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. What you should really look at is real effective tax rates by income level.[1] What you'll find is that the top 1% make 19% of all income, but pay 37% of all taxes, with an average tax rate of 27%. The bottom 50% earn 11% of all income, but only…

That's 37% of income taxes not 37% of all taxes. Also important is those numbers will be based on the federal and reported income numbers not based on the amount they actually earn much of which can be shifted around to specifically avoid the top marginal rate.

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

#70

Post by fiter »

ggreer wrote: post #30
fiter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Do you think the wealthiest 400 households have had a significant change in wealth/income makeup in the last 70 years? The article is highlighting that something has changed, and they are suggesting its tax policy not investment decisions.
Post reply on HN