Live data from Hacker News

Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

online.wsj.com

11–20 of 358 posts

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#11
post #4

My bad idea: Taxes and number of votes both increase on how "gifted" you are - smarter people would therefore have more say in the government, and have more incentive to make it more efficient and do it's job better. I have no clue how to measure or implement this.

There is a potential another problem, except for how to implement it.

After seeing some strange examples the last few years, I wonder if intelligence is at all correlated to rationality.

(Being rich is, I'd assume, more correlated with rationality than being intelligent. At least the rich, unless they inherited the money, did something right.)

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#12
post #4

My bad idea: Taxes and number of votes both increase on how "gifted" you are - smarter people would therefore have more say in the government, and have more incentive to make it more efficient and do it's job better. I have no clue how to measure or implement this.

At any given time the people in power will arrange things so that "gifted" and "smart" means "me, and my friends and family" ;)

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#13
There's a potentially dangerous line that the US is approaching where, factoring in all the exemptions, credits, and deductions, a majority of the population will not be paying income taxes at all. Thus, a majority of the population will be deciding (via their votes) how much and on what the taxes of the minority will be spent.

The only saving grace, if you can call it that, is that the people who actually place the votes (senators and reps) are themselves almost exclusively from that well-off minority.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#14
I don't think the rich really get anything out of it, but in the Nordic countries, fines increase in proportion to your wealth. I remember reading about a Nokia exec getting pulled over for speeding. His ticket was like $75,000! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1670583

I've often thought some fees should be adjusted for wealth. For example, a quarter a day isn't really enough to get me to take my library books back on time. Maybe for me it should be $2 a day.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#15
post #4

My bad idea: Taxes and number of votes both increase on how "gifted" you are - smarter people would therefore have more say in the government, and have more incentive to make it more efficient and do it's job better. I have no clue how to measure or implement this.

Not to criticize but I think you missed his point. The way I read it the point of the article is this...

We can't force the rich to pay more because they always find a way out of it. We know this because there were days when upper tax rates were 90% but tax revenue was roughly the same because the rich can lobby for loop holes and pay people to exploit those loop holes. The rich will find a way to keep from paying too much in taxes even if they have to buy some backwards little country and form their own nation.

So the only way to get rich people's money is to find something we can give them which makes them feel like they're spending their money for something rather than giving it away.

So the stupid ideas are in the context of "how can we make the rich give us their money?"

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#16
post #4

My bad idea: Taxes and number of votes both increase on how "gifted" you are - smarter people would therefore have more say in the government, and have more incentive to make it more efficient and do it's job better. I have no clue how to measure or implement this.

[deleted]

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#17
I think the "power" category is best, but obviously a sensitive topic. What we need is a layered democracy, where the smart people who understand a field and have power to influence laws there (with the advice of experts in whatever fields those laws have side-effects on), but not in a selfish way.

The way congress works now, it's the people with money who influence law, and some of them are doing it either out of self-interest, or in the short-term financial interests of their institutional shareholders (401(k) managers, for example), who don't understand anything about the domain.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#18
One thing that at least some rich people will pay for is status symbols (expensive watches, sports cars that will never exceed 100mph, mansions with rooms that are used only a couple of times a year, $500 t-shirts). Status signaling is ultimately a zero-sum positional arms race that can lead to some pretty ridiculous conclusions(1) and doesn't really leave anyone better off (other than, perhaps, luxury goods suppliers).

The bad version of this idea would be a special ID card and/or bumper sticker or t-shirt or watch that was given to top-bracket taxpayers. It would have to be reasonably hard to forge (or at least as hard to forge as, say, a Rolex) and able to be either displayed publicly or flashed discreetly in situations where one wants to assert status.

Another variation could be some kind of property tax where certain sub-neighborhoods would have exceptionally rates, say 100x what the ordinary tax on the land and improvements would be. Then people could signal status by living or staying in those areas. (This is actually not too different than somewhere like Manhattan or San Francisco currently, except the windfall is going to existing property owners rather than the government).

The nice thing about status symbols is that, like fiat currency, they can be rather cheaper to produce than what their value to the status-seeking public is. That is the government could potentially retain a very high seignorage, as it were, on this stuff.

Ultimately it would have to be determined whether the status symbols could be legally transferrable, and what, if any, penalty there would be for forging them.

As an aside, it strikes me that this sort of thing would be extremely similar to fiat currency, maybe identical.

[1](http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=safari&rls...)

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#19
post #9
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were kind of proposed in DC (I think they may actually exist in San Diego or somewhere), where you pay a variable rate to use the carpool lanes based on demand. So during rush hour it would cost $6 and 11am on a saturday it would cost $.50. People didn't like the idea because they would be "Lexus lanes" giving special privileges to the rich. Scott Adams is right that if we really want to solve the budge problem…

"we may need to accept that the people who can help the most may need some sort of special privileges." Because no-bid contracts, not going to jail when they commit crimes, real education for their kids, not living in crime zones, food that isn't poison, actual health care, living an extra three years, etc. aren't enough already.

To some extent... no, they aren't. They're the status quo. If you change nothing, the rich will still get them. That was the big point really. If you want to share some of their money, propose something else in exchange.

It will only change during an actual complete crash of the value of money. And even then it's not guaranteed, because they will still have access to an extensive network of influential people, while "we" won't.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#20
post #10

Why have the rich suddenly became a bunch of babies? What's with all the whining? Having money isn't enough, now they want to be worshipped like feudal lords.

Where did they start whining? And when did they expect to be worshipped?

Well, it’s the premise of the article, isn’t it? The whole idea is that you need to somehow appease the rich in order to do what’s necessary.

That premise might be wrong but it is the premise of the article.

Post reply on HN