Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich • Hacker News Board

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#51

Post by ubasu » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:15 PM UTC

Some of these already exist

1. Time: e.g There are already carpool lanes where you can ride by paying an extra fee. Even otherwise, if you are rich enough, you can just pay the fine, which would be the added tax.

5. Power: Rich people already have power by having access to lobbyists or to the appropriate media. If you are rich enough, you can fund a movement on your own.

Others don't make sense in a democracy where everyone is presumably equal, e.g. writing thank you notes to richer people for being kind enough to participate in the functioning of the country. As another comment said, this is like moving toward a visible aristocracy.

Also, it is mostly not true that the country doesn't go to war unless the middle class majority is on board.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#52

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:16 PM UTC

frankus wrote: post #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 supplier…

The problem is that it's hard to create a high status item. Say you invent the "US Govt. Certified Top 0.1% Badge" - do you really think Peter Thiel, John Paulson or Alex Rodriguez will really give a crap?

Taxing existing luxury status symbols could work, and is very likely a good idea. Creating new status symbols is likely to fail horribly.

Also, the tax on certain neighborhoods neglects the very large non-status reason why those neighborhoods are valuable: proximity to something cool. Manhattan is expensive not just because it raises your status to live there, but also because if you work at Goldman Sachs, you are willing to pay $3000/month rent + ridiculous NYC income taxes to avoid a 1 hour commute.

I suppose we could also bring back the Sumptuary laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#53

Post by megaman821 » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:17 PM UTC

I think the best solution would be to get rid of income taxes and just have sales and property taxes.

Taxing the rich a higher rate is always going to seem unfair to them because the only way those taxes can be lessened is by making less money. Taxing $2 million house at a special rate is a different story, it seems fair because if you don't want to pay the tax you live in a more modest house. Luxury cars, fur coats, yachts, etc. can all have different sales tax rates and they still become a status symbol many of the rich are willing to pay for but not being forced to pay for.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#54

Post by blahedo » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:17 PM UTC

forensic wrote: post #30

Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.

As I was reading the article, I actually had the thought that establishing a House of Lords would be in line with his "extra vote" power incentive. I don't think I'd advocate it (it's really another Bad Idea), but it's interesting to try to predict how the chips would fall on that one. :)

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#55

Post by te_platt » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:17 PM UTC

Eliminate all federal taxes and print the money needed for government operations. Effectively this becomes an inflation tax. Automatically it affects the wealthy in direct proportion to their wealth as opposed to their most recent earnings. No loopholes, no games, no misallocation of resources for tax breaks.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#56

Post by KMStraub » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:17 PM UTC

chrismealy wrote: post #5

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.

I didn't think the author was whining at all--quite the opposite. Whiners endlessly complain about what's wrong and never posit a solution. Mr. Dilbert has quite a few solutions here that are "bad" albeit, but productive thoughts nonetheless. That's progress if you ask me.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#57

Post by jbooth » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:19 PM UTC

Don't we already have this? If you have lawyers, accountants and possibly lobbyists, you have an entirely different relationship with the gov't than normal people.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#58

Post by _delirium » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #49

His idea about a 10% cut across the board is so common-sense - I've heard it before - yet we never ever hear this from anyone in Washington (not that I've heard, anyway). Why not? 10% may seem extreme - fair enough - but why not 2%? Could we try one year where every federal department has 2% less to spend than they did the year before? 2% isn't a lot, and would go a long way toward each dept rooting out their own 'wa…

For small percentages, I'd say that's actually the most common budget-cutting proposal. Politicians want to save money, but don't want to propose any actual services or programs be cut, so they tend to instead propose that every department should "find waste" equal to 1-3% or something. See: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22percent+across+the...

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#59

Post by jakevoytko » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:27 PM UTC

The best ideas in this framework would use sliding rewards. But they will never happen.

Take the HOV lane idea. Giving the top 1% access to HOV lanes is political suicide. But awarding hours for a special fast lane, linked to the infrastructure-based taxes you pay, sounds fairer. The family of 4 making $60K a year gets a few hours they can use when they need them, tax-exempt employees get nothing, and a CEO gets more hours than she can realistically use in a year.

But opponents would say you're giving advantages to those who are "ahead." Talented-yet-poor people have less time to strike it rich. It's a Catch 22 - you need time to make money, and money to get more time, and you have neither when you start anew.

This cuts to the heart of optimizing nations for the individual, versus optimizing for the nation as a whole. I'm not sure the answer is straightforward, or if the two answers are mutually exclusive.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#60

Post by WiseWeasel » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 6:28 PM UTC

A low-hanging fruit would be to retool Social Security to be relevant to the needs of more affluent contributors; they might feel better about paying in if they are assured a payout that might actually support what they would consider to be a reasonably comfortable retirement. As it stands, Social Security is pretty much a total loss for higher income brackets.

As for a power incentive, the only one I might envision is to create a public forum where the public and their representatives can debate how their tax money is being spent, and a user's "karma" or default visibility bonus on the site would be based on their tax contribution.