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

141–150 of 504 posts

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

#141

Post by dmix »

folbec wrote: post #40
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…

- They are NOT speaking of the 1% (such as medical professional or high income technical professionals) - They are NOT speaking of the 0.1 %. - They are speaking of the 0.01%. One person out of 10000. Not multimillionaires. 100 millionaires and billionaires. There is a very good reason why the tax foundating speaks of the 1% and not of the 0.1% or 0.01% : it is usefull to protect billionaires.

But when the politicians use this stuff to change the law it will most certainly be the first two (expanded far more broadly) who will be targeted.

They always say hand wavy stuff about billionaires whenever they get asked about paying for grand projects. But we’ve all seen how that works out in real life every time. I highly doubt that sort of categorization will ever carry over when it matters.

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

#142

Post by tolmasky »

coldtea wrote: post #77
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…

If society was a rich person with 1 billion paying $1M in taxes, and a regular person with $50K income paying $10K in taxes, the rich person would have paid nearly 99% of all taxes. And yet, they would have paid a pittance compared to their income (not to mention wealth), and it would absolutely no impact on their purchasing power or lifestyle (where the 10K of the 50K could make the difference between having savings…

Does "with" 1 billion mean they made 1 billion in income that year, or does it mean they have accumulated a billion over some longer previous period of time, meaning they probably conservatively(?) paid close to 500 million in taxes on making 1.5B, and now just unrelatedly, they are paying a million for whatever they did this year? Just want to understand the specifics of your example, since the 10K on 50K seems to be very close to current tax rate, so I'm assuming these aren't random hypothetical numbers.

I can't make the slider go up to 1B in income here (https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#tvFxGKBdZE), but according to that if you make 10,000,000 in SF, you'll pay $5,207,046 in taxes, so over half. Whereas, matching your statement, you'll pay 10K on 50K, so 1/5. From an income tax perspective, >50% certainly seems significantly larger than 20%.

Of course, this is pure income, so its as if we're talking about an athlete, and things of course change if the capital is not income. Similarly, none of this takes into account sales tax, etc. etc.

Of course, the other key question is what the taxes are for. If the purpose of the tax is to "impact their purchasing power or lifestyle", then I guess until you tax them to the point where they make 40K it will never match the 50K person? If the purpose of the tax on the other hand is to raise revenue for programs then it seems to be quite effective.

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

#143

Post by ComputerGuru »

cpr wrote: post #75
hos234 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. That's the strategy the Military uses - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pent... "At a cost of $400 million, some 1,200 auditors charged into the jungle of military finance, but returned in defeat. They were unable to pass the Pentagon or flunk it. They could only offer no opinion, explaining the military’s empire of hundreds of acronymic accounting silos was too illogical to penetrate"

Remember when Rumsfeld announced that 2.3T USD were missing from the military? https://www.city-journal.org/html/americas-missing-money-157... Yeah, nor do most people. The date he announced that? September 10, 2001. The section of the Pentagon hit? The accounting wing with all the records.

It’s a lot easier on your sanity to just accept that (insanely) crazy coincidences happen. If it helps, that number jumped to 6.5T a few years later and now stands at 21T and the military and Pentagon have simply stalled all attempts at enforcing audits. They have the gall to simply refuse to account for the discrepancies and believe they cannot be taken to task for misappropriated funds; they don’t need to blow up records when no one does anything if they simply refuse to make them available.

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

#144

Post by rc_kas »

newen wrote: post #128
makomk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful. The two articles rely on vastly different cherry-picked definitions of who counts as rich, and neither claim is even remotely true anymore if you use the other definition. The top 1% are indeed audited at about the same rate as the working poor, but they also pay higher taxes than everyone else. This NYT article on the other hand picks out the top 400, who apparently pay lower taxes but are much more aggress…

Lower tax rates, not necessarily lower taxes.

Lower tax rate is indeed my definition of lower taxes.

A lower tax payment is a different thing.

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

#145

Post by bcrosby95 »

throwing838383 wrote: post #95

It's misleading because the rich that they're talking about already paid a much higher rate when they originally got the money in earnings. It's just the 2nd round of taxation: the capital gains which is lower, as it should be. And let's not forget, taxes are extremely high on everyone. The US Govt spends 38% of all US GDP, currently (recently above 40%!). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spendi.…

Nah, the rich weren't taxed, the corporation was. If you want the legal protection of a fictional entity shielding you from liabilities we should be taxing that entity.

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

#146

Post by whyaduck »

eloisant wrote: post #119
throwing838383 wrote: post #95

It's misleading because the rich that they're talking about already paid a much higher rate when they originally got the money in earnings. It's just the 2nd round of taxation: the capital gains which is lower, as it should be. And let's not forget, taxes are extremely high on everyone. The US Govt spends 38% of all US GDP, currently (recently above 40%!). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spendi.…

I don't see why capital gains should be taxed lower. Money you get from working, from your blood and your sweat should be heavily taxed, but money you're earning just by already having money (whether it's from your work, inherited, donated from family members) shouldn't be taxed as well? What's the logic here?

The motivation for the OP's argument is that "tax has already been paid" on certain income. It's an arbitrary "rule" put forward by advocates for the wealthy. There's no reason capital gains can't be taxed as income other than: people who make lots of money on capital gains don't want it to be (e.g. the entire hedge fund/private equity industry, along with the budding American aristocracy).

Note: I'm not saying changing the tax rate on capital gains wouldn't have an impact on investment patterns. It would.

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

hos234 wrote: post #34
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

Yup. That's the strategy the Military uses - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pent... "At a cost of $400 million, some 1,200 auditors charged into the jungle of military finance, but returned in defeat. They were unable to pass the Pentagon or flunk it. They could only offer no opinion, explaining the military’s empire of hundreds of acronymic accounting silos was too illogical to penetrate"

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by archie2 »

bogus_323423 wrote: post #91
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.

As always, nobody asks what we the people could do if we were just taxed at the same rate as these hated class enemies. We might spend it on things we actually want, which of course is to be prevented at all costs.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax. The top 20% of earners pay 80% of taxes.

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

#149

Post by [deleted] »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #83
gorpovitch wrote: post #51

I'm tired to read articles written inside "Opinions" sections.(not that I necessarily disagree with it, you guys are explaining how this article is right or wrong better than me). I would really like (not intended at HN, it's a general crisis in my life) to read more articles about politics that are neutral and factually oriented. It seems like 90% of the political content I read twists facts and build cheap, cherry-…

Politics is a mind-killer https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by kaibee »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #83
gorpovitch wrote: post #51

I'm tired to read articles written inside "Opinions" sections.(not that I necessarily disagree with it, you guys are explaining how this article is right or wrong better than me). I would really like (not intended at HN, it's a general crisis in my life) to read more articles about politics that are neutral and factually oriented. It seems like 90% of the political content I read twists facts and build cheap, cherry-…

Politics is a mind-killer https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...

I think you're missing the point of that article a bit.
Post reply on HN