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

491–500 of 504 posts

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

#491

Post by Synaesthesia »

meerita wrote: post #299
Synaesthesia wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, workers don't own anything in Socialist States. In Socialism, it is the State that owns everything and obligate the workers to work. You cannot create any business in Socialist states due the nature of the abolition of private property. You cannot choose what to work, it's the State who assign you that.

Then they're not socialist states. In fact the USSR was a counter-socialist state, they had to overcome the real revolution and re-instate managerial control from the workers, at great difficulty.

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

#492

Post by conanbatt »

Forbo wrote: post #388
Joeri wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a great idea for the bitcoin and cash community.

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

#493

Post by conanbatt »

captainbland wrote: post #482
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

Seems like the correct thing to do is just to send the very rich person the bill for the costs of investigating their tax arrangements if it is substantially obscure. This would both make investigating these arrangements financially viable and disincentivise people from setting up arrangements like that in the first place.

Is the tax man an employee of the tax payer or is it the other way around?

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

#494

Post by captainbland »

conanbatt wrote: post #493
captainbland wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the correct thing to do is just to send the very rich person the bill for the costs of investigating their tax arrangements if it is substantially obscure. This would both make investigating these arrangements financially viable and disincentivise people from setting up arrangements like that in the first place.

Is the tax man an employee of the tax payer or is it the other way around?

I suppose the question is "which tax payer?" Which is unclear because really it's the "employee" (in the sense that an organisation could be considered an employee at any rate) of a democratically elected government which in principle predominantly represents people who pay tax in general but also some who can't or don't.

And one of their roles is in ensuring the interests of those lower down the income scale (which in this case even includes senior salaried professionals and only moderately successful business owners) such that they do not have an undue burden simply because somebody with far, far greater means has decided to arrange themselves some kind of labyrinthe with the express purpose of ensuring they outwit the rest of society. In this case it of course makes sense to make them feel the burden of their own creation rather than burdening the rest of society with it.

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

#495

Post by meerita »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #491
meerita wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, workers don't own anything in Socialist States. In Socialism, it is the State that owns everything and obligate the workers to work. You cannot create any business in Socialist states due the nature of the abolition of private property. You cannot choose what to work, it's the State who assign you that.

Then they're not socialist states. In fact the USSR was a counter-socialist state, they had to overcome the real revolution and re-instate managerial control from the workers, at great difficulty.

The USSR was a full blown socialist state. They managed capital in the practice, they also traded with other countries and let farmers do commerce due the war with them. but that was their strategy (on Russia) but in the rest of the socialist states they didn't. There's so much books written about this topic you can never end to find contradictions in their rules. Of course the elite lived like the best capitalists.

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

#496

Post by [deleted] »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #392
Joeri wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's the possibility of implementing this in combination with a luxury rate adjustment that takes something like median values for product categories and then scales rates as you move above or below that? Because it would seem to me that consumption of low-income earners will trend toward below-the-median while consumption of the wealthy will trend toward above-the-median, giving you an additional handle to make th…

[deleted]

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

#497

Post by Joeri »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #392
Joeri wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's the possibility of implementing this in combination with a luxury rate adjustment that takes something like median values for product categories and then scales rates as you move above or below that? Because it would seem to me that consumption of low-income earners will trend toward below-the-median while consumption of the wealthy will trend toward above-the-median, giving you an additional handle to make th…

Well, it all depends on how you define product categories. Is a macbook pro the same product category as a chromebook? You can slice the market in such a way that luxury goods would all be bucketed into “median” price range.

IMHO it’s easier to construct a “fair” tax system on the income side than on the expenditures side, provided you count all income equally. Currently income from labor is usually taxed higher than income from investment, and that’s not fair.

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

#498

Post by decoyworker »

dexterdog wrote: post #412
decoyworker wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person receiving should count it as income and have it taxed accordingly.

Gifts are taxable above a certain point which is kind of crazy since taxes were already paid on the initial income.

A lot of things are taxed multiple times. I pay income tax, then use that taxed income to purchase a vehicle which carries a sales tax, and for awhile I even paid a tax on the value of that car annually. Same money being taxed multiple times. All recurring property tax can be viewed this way.

Inheritance or gifts should absolutely be taxed as income to the person receiving.

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

#499

Post by conanbatt »

captainbland wrote: post #494
conanbatt wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the tax man an employee of the tax payer or is it the other way around?

I suppose the question is "which tax payer?" Which is unclear because really it's the "employee" (in the sense that an organisation could be considered an employee at any rate) of a democratically elected government which in principle predominantly represents people who pay tax in general but also some who can't or don't. And one of their roles is in ensuring the interests of those lower down the income scale (which…

> And one of their roles is in ensuring the interests of those lower down the income scale ...

This is not a responsibility of government as described in the constitution the united states.

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

#500

Post by captainbland »

conanbatt wrote: post #499
captainbland wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the question is "which tax payer?" Which is unclear because really it's the "employee" (in the sense that an organisation could be considered an employee at any rate) of a democratically elected government which in principle predominantly represents people who pay tax in general but also some who can't or don't. And one of their roles is in ensuring the interests of those lower down the income scale (which…

> And one of their roles is in ensuring the interests of those lower down the income scale ... This is not a responsibility of government as described in the constitution the united states.

I'm not American but which amendment is that out of interest?
Post reply on HN