Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 161 posts

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#61

Post by falcolas »

dwrowe wrote: post #50
falcolas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, they aren’t paying more, percentage wise. That’s why everyone is upset. They’re paying more in gross volumes of money, but significantly less when compared to their actual income. You should ask, whose life would be enriched more by having more of the money they’re paying in tax - the average income household paying 30% on their $40,000, or the millionaire paying 7% on their hundreds of millions of income?

My point was - I can be okay with them not paying more, and it isn’t because I think I’ll be a billionaire someday.

By being on this site, it seems safe to assume that you’re in the top 10% of earners across the US. Perhaps it would be worth thinking of this from the point of view of the other 90% of the population? Folks for whom that tax money would greatly enrich their lives?

Also, let’s not forget that it’s not just the visible 30% that’s taken from your paycheck, but a matching 30% that’s paid by your employer on your behalf. So, by leveling the playing field, a median earner could be getting upwards of $20,000 more than they are today.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#62

Post by ctdonath »

bilbo0s wrote: post #55
thrower123 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy just means you managed to convince more idiots to say A rather than B. It's not like it is really an admirable state of affairs. Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them.

> It's not like it [democracy] is really an admirable state of affairs. So, what is an "admirable state of affairs" if democracy is so objectionable to you?

Individual liberty.

Individuals choosing to engage in mutually beneficial activities, rather than being told at implied gunpoint to do what a bunch of ignorant strangers, or a tyrannical dictator, decided.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#63

Post by zpallin »

ColanR wrote: post #18
noahth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. The way we accomplish that is through government. Elon Musk is not improving the environment, he's launching cars into space for giggles while mistreating his workers.

> Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. How about we amend that to, 'Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources, in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'. Elon Musk figured out how to make a ton of money; he has more right to determine its use than some bureaucrat in an office. You say that government is our method of collective allocation, but it's real…

That logic justifies Kings and Dictators; if someone, by force, amasses total power over a people, then according to your rule they deserve to control it.

Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason.

All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human rights and equality is a better guarantee of social stability, and therefore a better conduit for trade and growth.

Kings and Dictators open up a society to turmoil and instability, which is bad for markets. There is no reason for a society not to guarantee social stability through measures of equality at this point.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#64

Post by rayiner »

geggam wrote: post #39
rayiner wrote: post #16

There are two major problems with this line of reasoning: 1) The bit about the 70% tax rate is wrong. The 70% was on wage income, but other sorts of income was taxed lower, and a lot of income wasn’t taxed at all. https://taxfoundation.org/70-tax-rate-entrepreneurial-income . Actual tax rates on the rich have been highly stable since the 1950s: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ 2) The amount…

This graph doesnt agree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_R...

That’s the top marginal rate on wage income. It doesn’t actually look at the total tax people pay as a percentage of their total income. That changes not just based on the top marginal rate, but on where each bracket kicks in, the composition of income, and the tax base. For example, back in the day, things like corporate expense accounts were not treated as taxable income. And the highest brackets kicked in at the equivalent of $3.5 million today, which means even top 0.01%-ers had half their income taxed at a lower bracket.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#65

Post by jazzyk »

thrower123 wrote: post #48
AlexandrB wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not. > Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, wit…

Democracy just means you managed to convince more idiots to say A rather than B. It's not like it is really an admirable state of affairs. Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them.

I agree with you on the democracy point, however:

Only 56% of all billionaires are self-made.

Others inherited their money (the Walton family, the Rockefellers, eetc.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-m...

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#66

Post by ajsnigrutin »

rootusrootus wrote: post #12
skrowl wrote: post #4

It's probably different in the UK where The Guardian is, but in the USA the bottom 45% of wage earners pay $0 federal income tax while the top 20% pay 87% of it. I'm not sure how much more you should slap on the "evil" job-creating rich before it's "proper", but 87% already seems pretty high to me. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-fed...

I think it's safe to say that the top 20% is almost entirely made up of people who are definitely not super-rich.

This!

Top are doctors, engineers, small business owners, etc., and usually, they are the ones who get hit with the highest taxes (atleast around here in europe).

The super rich have ways to move their money, the ones above usually don't.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#67

Post by lurcio »

skrowl wrote: post #4

It's probably different in the UK where The Guardian is, but in the USA the bottom 45% of wage earners pay $0 federal income tax while the top 20% pay 87% of it. I'm not sure how much more you should slap on the "evil" job-creating rich before it's "proper", but 87% already seems pretty high to me. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-fed...

The Guardian is operationally in the UK, but its ownership is sited in an offshore trust.

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#68

Post by wycy »

ctdonath wrote: post #42
pizza234 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's also giving thousands of people jobs Enterpreneurs don't "give" jobs to people. Refer to the "wage labour" definition: > Wage labour is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour power under a formal or informal employment contract. precisely, they're purchasing labor. And actually, Bezos is puchasing it at a dirty cheap price.

Pedantic. He created a job opening, they accepted it. Ask NYC how terrible those 30,000 new Amazon jobs are ... oh right, they don't exist there because the "Bezos is a meanie" people drove them away. A job is better than no job. Bezos hired them to do something productive.

Incorrect. Amazon says it was not about the politics[0]. Plus, Amazon is still coming to NYC anyway, because there was still demand for an office there[1]. But now NYC gets it for free rather than paying billions in subsidies.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-on-...

[1] https://nypost.com/2019/05/27/amazon-is-reportedly-eyeing-of...

Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes

#69

Post by ceejayoz »

ctdonath wrote: post #42
pizza234 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's also giving thousands of people jobs Enterpreneurs don't "give" jobs to people. Refer to the "wage labour" definition: > Wage labour is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour power under a formal or informal employment contract. precisely, they're purchasing labor. And actually, Bezos is puchasing it at a dirty cheap price.

Pedantic. He created a job opening, they accepted it. Ask NYC how terrible those 30,000 new Amazon jobs are ... oh right, they don't exist there because the "Bezos is a meanie" people drove them away. A job is better than no job. Bezos hired them to do something productive.

The HQ2 jobs don't exist in Crystal City yet, either. Let's not count chickens before they hatch... particularly with Amazon quietly continuing to hatch chickens in NYC anyways.

NYC doesn't seem like it's struggling to attract jobs.

Post reply on HN