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

331–340 of 504 posts

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

#331

Post by astine »

empath75 wrote: post #274
astine wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" I don't see why capital gains should be taxed lower. " The point of taxing capital gains lower than income is to encourage the wealthy to invest rather than hoard their wealth. This is good because invested money helps drive economic growth which is usually good for everyone.

That seems like a very good argument for taxing wealth.

Not really. We're talking about economic growth not equity. The argument that widespread private investment is better for growth than widespread hoarding is better established than the argument that government spending is better for growth than hoarding. Even with regard to equity or fairness, government spending isn't always better as more government creates the opportunity for more government capture.

There are other arguments for directly taxing wealth, but the one I listed isn't one in my opinion.

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

#332

Post by harimau777 »

swebs wrote: post #298
astrodust wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, the "tax the living hell out of the working poor" tax plan.

You must be thinking of something else. The effective tax rate is negative for the poor due to the basic income provided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_bu...

I'm not seeing that in the page you linked. Is there a specific statistic that you are referring to?

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

#333

Post by gnicholas »

DesiLurker wrote: post #323
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…

disagree with both the points (inflation indexing & double taxation). when vast majority of the other income is for regular people is not 'corrected' for inflation then there no reason to do it just for investments. this produces a systematic tilting towards 'invested money' & over long periods that gives them huge advantage (e.g.. last 40 years). inflation is an emergent property of the monetary system we have, givi…

> vast majority of the other income is for regular people is not 'corrected' for inflation then there no reason to do it just for investments

The vast majority of other income is taxed in the year it is earned, so there is no/minimal inflation.

> if anything cr-p like HFT should be taxed more to ensure there is less incentive for that kind of skimming over the top.

Gains from HFT would not be LTCG (held less than a year), so it would be taxed at ordinary income rates.

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

#334

Post by xyzzyz »

scarejunba wrote: post #254
greggman2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since the capital invested was smaller than the tax losses generate Can you give an example of how that works? As a non-rich person if I invest $100 it seems like the largest taxes I can pay is $100 (100% tax). How do I generate > $100 tax loss for a $100 investment?

Once upon a time there were laws that said that if you had expenses on certain farms you could deduct those from your income (and sometimes carry those expenses over to later). There was no true economic loss. You still had the farm. It's just that expenses counted as deductible. This was for the reason that farms sometimes have a large lead time before they're productive and I want to give you the chance of survivin…

You can always deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses from the income, and carry them over next 20 years. This is completely normal.

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

#335

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

dv_dt wrote: post #230
kevinwang wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual article contains charts that seem to support the claim that the top 1% pay higher taxes

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.

> The wealthy pay in absolute terms, more dollars, but they pay a lower rate than others.

There’s at least one perspective where this makes sense:

Everyone expects a discount on goods and services when purchased in bulk.

Why should tax be abt different?

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

#336

Post by anoplus »

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

I thought maybe we need to penalize "complexity". I feel like there is too much incentive to complexify things in society.

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

#337

Post by secabeen »

rhacker wrote: post #325
secabeen wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the wealthy have moved their income address to a tax free state, saving them an additional 6-12%.

Whereas the poor can't move without losing their job. Yeah, this chart is federal only, but state taxes are also an issue, certainly.

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

#338

Post by mcguire »

kevinwang wrote: post #215
jellicle wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top 1% are indeed audited at about the same rate as the working poor, but they also pay higher taxes than everyone else. But they don't. That's the point. Your conventional wisdom is wrong. The USA has a large number of regressive taxes, which tax the poor more heavily than the rich. These have been steadily expanded. And it has one, only one, progressive tax - the federal (not state) income tax - which has bee…

The actual article contains charts that seem to support the claim that the top 1% pay higher taxes

2003: The 99.999%ile (?) pays the highest taxes; the Top 400 and the rest pay marginally lower.

2011: The rate is mostly flat, especially above the 80-90%ile. The 99.99%ile pays the highest.

2018: The 99.99%ile pays the highest, the Top 400 appear to be paying a lower rate than almost anyone.

Somewhere between 2003 and 2011, the 0-10%ile began paying more than the immediately higher percentiles.

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

#339

Post by ajslater »

ggreer wrote: post #174
mcv wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> They didn't do that in the 1950s, though. In the 1950s there weren't any alternatives to the US. Europe and Asia were rebuilding from WWII. Central and South America weren't nearly as developed as today. Places like Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea were extremely poor. The english language wasn't as popular internationally. Intercontinental communication was expensive and low bandwidth. Travel was much more expensive.…

> It's much, much easier to live and work in a foreign country today. And it's only getting easier as technology improves.

So let the current oligarchs exile themselves and we'll do what we can to make sure no more Bezos are created again.

I wonder if your school situation has to do how schools are funded in the United States in particular. It sounds like your school needs more tax money from richer parts of the country then where you grew up.

>> Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc. > Do they?

They absolutely do. What I've seen of other countries's welfare states is grand.

> I find that most people are successful despite governments, not because of them.

Universal Healthcare. Universal shelter. Public transportation. Environmental protection. Welfare. Universal Education. Massive wealth redistribution. Markets. Most rich countries do these things with the government and are better for it. Huge numbers of Americans are not successful because this country lacks these things, and is actively prevented from having them.

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

#340

Post by goodluckchuck »

0x0aff374668 wrote: post #240
darawk wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USA has a large number of regressive taxes, which tax the poor more heavily than the rich. These have been steadily expanded. And it has one, only one, progressive tax - the federal (not state) income tax - which has been steadily made less progressive in recent years to the point where overall taxation is at best flat and more likely slightly regressive. Citation needed. Saying the US has "only one" progressiv…

> And that only increases as you get richer. Correct. Which is why income is such a miniscule fraction of the 1% (and above's) earnings. It's all out there in the open. Pick any CEO in the top-100 corporations. Look at their income. Then look at their overall earnings. The bulk falls under capital gains due to stock. Then there is deferred compensation, where taxes are lowered even MORE if you agree to postpone being…

As a professor of mine once explained:

"Income tax is the tax you pay on living expenses."

The more expensive your lifestyle, the more money you have to pull out of your companies / trusts / investments etc. If you want to reduce your income tax, reduce your expenses. But in any event, you never hold your own money and since it's never yours "you" never get taxed.

Post reply on HN