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

311–320 of 504 posts

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

#311

Post by secabeen »

swebs wrote: post #159
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

Maybe its time we start considering the Fair Tax plan again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Why do we need the fair tax plan to create a flat rate, when the graph in this chart shows that the rate is already pretty flat? Today, most people pay between 22 and 28% taxes.

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

#312

Post by choeger »

Are these the top in income or wealth? Because afaik most taxes are on income. If you accumulate a lot of wealth and do not proportionally generate income from it (think of private real estate), your tax rate should drop by that measure, right?

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

#313

Post by koheripbal »

rc_kas wrote: post #144
newen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that "tax rate" is an ambiguous term because different kinds of income at taxed at different rates.

So, for example, if someone makes most of their money on dividends, then they pay capital gains tax, and it appears like they are unfairly paying a lower rate than everyone else. ...but that's not a fair comparison because it's a different sort of income, with a VASTLY riskier risk profile. Taxing it at the income rate wouldn't make sense.

In the past, in the US, capital gains wasn't taxed at all because it was considered double taxation (since the investment was already taxed). ...and in some other countries, there is no tax on capital gains.

I've seen people claim that country XYZ has higher tax rates than the US, but then when you look closed, they have zero capital gains taxes.

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

#314

Post by bogus_323423 »

archie2 wrote: post #148
bogus_323423 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There has never been a society wherein the most productive do not bear the majority of the costs. This is simply due to necessity; nothing else is possible.

At the least they also have the most say in how society is run, given money is the deciding factor in electoral politics such as ours. Were sortition or some other noncorrupt means of choosing rulers used, this would actually be an unfair arrangement. I suspect this is why oligarchy such as ours is so popular; it recognizes the reality of elites while creating the illusion of popular legitimacy.

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

#315

Post by bumby »

01100011 wrote: post #172
whafro wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to [0], a major general (O-8) makes something like $160k, depending on years of experience. I'm sure there's additional hazard pay and such, but you wouldn't expect a general to be making millions through their core pay. [0]: https://www.navycs.com/charts/2019-military-pay-chart.html

Yeah but that doesn't include their kickbacks, consulting fees, etc. Can active duty generals sit on the board of directors of companies? I seem to remember a startup I worked at had one either on the board or heavily involved as a consultant but I can't remember if he was active duty at the time.

I believe some positions get a stipend (particularly if they are expected to entertain dignitaries) but are generally (ha) not allowed to serve outside positions that might be a conflict of interest. I couldn't find details yet of a specific article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but there are some memos out:

https://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/resource_library/deskbook...

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

#316

Post by sharadov »

jumbopapa wrote: post #305
sharadov wrote: post #267

I pay 35% of my net income in taxes, so that the rich don't have to!

Tax rate is figured off of gross. You could easily inflate your tax burden by taking it as a percentage of net income.

I meant "gross" , thanks for correcting me.

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

#317

Post by mLuby »

troupe wrote: post #266
mLuby wrote: post #175

We should tax wealth not income. Yes I know it's hard to calculate. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Also financial penalties should be percentages of wealth, not fixed dollar amounts (perhaps with a floor). E.g. fine for littering is 1% wealth.

Lets say you save $10,000 and invest it in a stock. It then goes up to $20,000. You are happy to pay taxes on that amount even though next year it might go back down again?

Nobody is happy to pay taxes, but yes.

    Year 1: pay taxes on $10K in savings, $100K house.
    Year 2: pay taxes on $10K in stocks, $80K house.
    Year 3: pay taxes on $20K in stocks, $120K house.
    Year 4: pay taxes on $0 in stocks, $100K house.

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

#318

Post by harryh »

0x0aff374668 wrote: post #245
gnicholas wrote: post #198

A couple of points regarding the lower rate of taxation for capital gains: • Capital gains are not inflation-indexed, which is one reason to have a lower rate. Consider three individuals: * Person A earned $100,000 working at BigCo in 2019 * Person B sold shares in 2019 that were purchased in 2017, for a (LTCG) gain of $100,000 * Person C sold shares in 2019 that were purchased in 1965, for a (LTCG) gain of $100,000…

"Double taxation" For such an in depth example you really missed this. I make $100,000 in year X. That covers two brackets, and my effective rate is, say, 25% federal. SO I have 75k left over. I invest 5k. It doubles to 10k. I'm then taxed on the 5k I earned. Not the 5k I invested. But do go on about double taxation.

Do go on? Sure!

Read this: https://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/27/a-quick-economics...

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

#319

Post by rayiner »

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.

Billionaires pay low tax rates because capital gains is taxed at lower rates. That’s true not just in the US, but in most of Europe as well.

So what’s the point? Even confiscatory 100% taxes on billionaires wouldn’t raise much money (about $127 billion per year, compared to the multi-trillion cost of social programs on the table). And getting rid of preferential treatment of capital gains would risk departing from what’s become an international consensus.

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

#320

Post by brightball »

joshuamorton wrote: post #263
dv_dt wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a key language ambiguity here. Whatever your position on what the rich should pay, there is a question of what is being paid as a proportional rate of total income, vs what is being paid in absolute terms. Confounding that difference are also issues of income tax rate, vs capital gains rates and wealth vs income. The wealthy pay in absolute terms, more dollars, but they pay a lower rate than others.

No, according to this article, the 1% continue to pay a larger percent of their income. It is only once you move into the 1% of the 1% that the rate again decreases.

I’ll go ahead and preface this by saying “I don’t know” but for people at the very top, are there undisclosed tax incentives to encourage them to spend their money?

By undisclosed I mean negotiated. When you are trying to get somebody to spend a ton of money to open a business, donate to charity, bring a bunch of jobs, etc is there a negotiation that happens to provide lower tax options to encourage that spending?

Post reply on HN