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

381–390 of 504 posts

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

#381

Post by zarro »

xphilter wrote: post #364
zarro wrote: post #259

I think this “vilify the rich minority” mentality that’s so popular these days is destructive in the fact that the people that popularize this, see it as a path of least resistance to getting subsidized at the expense of the rich, instead of working toward improving themselves and the value of the products/services they provide so that they may, in return, purchase valuable services for themselves. In the end when th…

In your opinion, would there be any way of pushing back against tax cuts for wealthy without "vilify the rich minority"?

The question itself comes off as prejudiced because you seem to imply that the wealthy should pay more than those that are not wealthy, and discarding the fact that your discriminating against those that are wealthy by doing so.

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

#382

Post by standardUser »

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.

That's not a useful thing to add to the conversation without the context of how much income is going to those two different groups of income earners. Some might even say it is purposefully misleading.

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

#384

Post by efa »

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-…

Yeah, wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air. I think "humility" is the key word. It's rare the person who goes into a discussion with an open mind not thinking they are so smart they know the right side of every subject before they even explore it in depth. How refreshing would it be for a politician (our supposed leaders) to be intellectually honest versus just taking a side that leads to greater power for their party.

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

#385

Post by ClumsyPilot »

koheripbal wrote: post #313
rc_kas wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Ah yes, the riskiest activities of them all: investing in fortune 500, government bonds, index funds and inflating real-estate prices. They all count as capital gains.

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

#386

Post by gnicholas »

xyzzyz wrote: post #334
scarejunba wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You can always deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses from the income

Except for costs that must be capitalized and depreciated/amortized, which includes lots and lots of things (computers, furniture, anything else with a useful life)

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

#387

Post by MisterBastahrd »

darawk wrote: post #225
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 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…

Citation?

Try sales taxes. The poor aren't excluded from them, yet someone who is poor is far more likely to spend a larger percentage of their income on them than anyone with enough income to save and invest.

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

#388

Post by Forbo »

Joeri wrote: post #379
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. One of the most important things to understand about tax discussions is that there are two broad classes of "rich" -- high paid salaried employees vs. wealthy investors. When you see claims like "the top 20% of people pay most of the taxes", that…

The rich spend a smaller share of their income, so a VAT scheme would in practice produce a regressive taxation scheme, with the lowest incomes paying relatively the most, because they have to spend all of their income.

What about a flat transactional tax that occurs any time money changes hands? I found this not too long ago and have been enamored with the idea:

http://apttax.com/execsummary.php

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

#389

Post by Clubber »

mcguire wrote: post #346
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…

There are also: * FICA, which is strongly regressive at the higher end. * Sales taxes, which are also strongly regressive since (citation needed) the poor likely pay more of their income on taxable goods. ("There's only so much filet mignon you can eat," according to a government professor I once had.) * Property taxes. * Fees.

Also, all of our morality or "sin" taxes are highly regressive: tobacco, booze, pot, soda, etc.

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

#390

Post by thisisbrians »

jm_l wrote: post #217
_edo wrote: post #84

That has to be the worst x-axis on a graph I've seen in a long time. The grid lines measure 0-10th, 20-30th, 40-50th, 60-70th, 80-90th, 95-99th, 99.99th, Top 400? That's atrocious, not only is it non-linear, not only does it have a line with regularly spaced dots giving the impression of continuity, but it skips from percent groups to absolute numbers? If we're talking about historical taxes why are we looking at tax…

I don't understand your complaint, isn't average tax rate a percentage of income? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rate

I think OP's point is that due to the complexity of tax laws, especially for the wealthy who have more non-wage income, the tax rate doesn't capture as useful a picture as actual dollars of taxes paid.
Post reply on HN