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

Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 358 posts

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#111

Post by law »

ubasu wrote: post #51

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 e…

"Just paying the fine" undermines the entire argument about saving time. When a cop pulls you over for illegally driving in the carpool lane, he's not going to run out of his car, hand you the ticket, and run back. He's going to keep you there for fifteen minutes, because he wants to waste your time. It's just not worth it.

Regarding power, I think you're overestimating how rich these people are. The people in the highest federal income tax brackets aren't making over a million a year. For 2010, the highest federal tax bracket is 35% for above $375k/year. It's 33% for over $170k. Just for reference, if you're married, filing jointly, and you're both engineers making $90k or something, you would be in the 33% tax bracket. Certainly these people don't have access "to lobbyists or to the appropriate media."

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#112

Post by te_platt »

benohear wrote: post #73
te_platt wrote: post #55

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.

This would hit people with savings in cash (or bonds), i.e. the middle class. The rich tend to have assets (or foreign holdings) which should be largely inflation-proof.

I admit to not taking my own idea here too seriously but still want to add a couple of points.

There would only be inflation if the amount of money printed exceeded the production of new goods and services. Could congress control how much they spend? Not too likely but it's not very likely now and at least this way everyone including the poor would have a reason to resist excessive spending. Would the production of new goods and services increase? I think so.

There would be other benefits as well, including: 1. Eliminating the costs of compliance with tax law. 2. Eliminating the costs of collecting the tax. 3. Severely cutting back the power of congress to control through tax policy.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#113

Post by kenjackson »

abrenzel wrote: post #89

Scott Adams, like the politicians in Washington DC, is living in a dream world. Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running a deficit due to entitlements. Tax "the rich" at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. Tax corporations at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. On the left, politicians make it sound as though we're just a few tax hikes and some defense cuts…

"Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running a deficit due to entitlements."

That's not true. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budg...

Our revenue is about $2.4T. Entitlements are $2.0T.

Taxing the rich at 100% would generate about $2T in additional revenue each year. Which would pretty much cover entitlements. Of course its absurd to do that -- and its not as if people will continue to generate revenue if all of it is taxed, but lets not spread myths, even in hyperbole.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#114

Post by harryh »

ryanf wrote: post #93
abrenzel wrote: post #89

Scott Adams, like the politicians in Washington DC, is living in a dream world. Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running a deficit due to entitlements. Tax "the rich" at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. Tax corporations at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. On the left, politicians make it sound as though we're just a few tax hikes and some defense cuts…

> Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running a deficit due to entitlements. Tax "the rich" at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. Tax corporations at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. Do you have some numbers for this?

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

In 2010 Total income was about 2.1T and total expenses were about 3.5T. Defense was about 23% of spending and discretionary spending was about 12%.

3.5T * (100% - 23% - 12%) = 2.275T

So thats still about a 175 Billion dollar deficit.

Admittedly 2010 was a below average year in terms of the US economy. In better years things might not look as bleak.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#115

Post by gabrielroth »

jakevoytko wrote: post #59

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…

The HOV-lane idea starts out in the wrong place. If you want to raise money from apportioning a scarce resource (in this case space on the road), you use prices, not taxes.

Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London—it's too bad Bloomberg's attempt to install them in New York failed.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#116

Post by benohear »

axod wrote: post #96
benohear wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying the industry as a whole failed.

I don't think that's true at all. Several banks did fantastically, announced record profits etc. The industry as a whole didn't fail, some particular institutions did.

The way the bailout was sold to us was that if these failing institutions were allowed to collapse, they would have brought down the rest with them. I actually hold that to be true and for me that equates to an overall failure of the industry.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#117

Post by ugh »

burgerbrain wrote: post #66
ugh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s disclaimer to protect himself from any and all attacks on his positions.

Regardless of why he said it, it's the stated premise. Anything else is you making assumptions and accusations .

Scott Adams is at the very least making the assumption that the rich need some sort of appeasement. The specific ideas he mentions aren’t really relevant to this central point.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#118

Post by jmulho »

tptacek wrote: post #31
bluedevil2k wrote: post #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…

This is pretty disingenuous. I've held low-wage jobs, and so have most of the members of my immediate family, and taxes took a serious bite out our paychecks. You are referring to the federal income tax, as many people do in debates like this, but lower-middle class people pay a much greater percentage of their income in payroll taxes than do wealthy people; the "income tax" debate is misleading.

A person making $20,000 pays the same US federal payroll tax rate as a person making $100,000 (7.65% in 2010, 5.65% in 2011). This tax pays for Social Security and Medicare (retirement income and retirment healthcare). Federal income tax pays for most of everything else: national defense, public safety, infrastructure, education.

In 2009, 47% of US households paid zero federal income tax. We are close to the point where the voting power of non-tax payers exceeds that of tax payers - the point at which people can make decisions they don't have to pay for.

Name your issue: foreign wars, Wall Street bailouts, universal healthcare, bridges to nowhere, prescription drugs for seniors, cash for clunkers. I don’t know about you, but I want the people making those kinds of decisions to have some skin in the game.

It is not at all disingenuous to have concerns about this.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#119

Post by abrenzel »

kenjackson wrote: post #113
abrenzel wrote: post #89

Scott Adams, like the politicians in Washington DC, is living in a dream world. Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running a deficit due to entitlements. Tax "the rich" at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. Tax corporations at 100%, and we would still be running a deficit. On the left, politicians make it sound as though we're just a few tax hikes and some defense cuts…

"Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running a deficit due to entitlements." That's not true. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budg... Our revenue is about $2.4T. Entitlements are $2.0T. Taxing the rich at 100% would generate about $2T in additional revenue each year. Which would pretty much cover entitlements. Of course its absurd to do that -- and its n…

Maybe not this year, but according to the CBO Social Security enters a deficit this year (originally projected to be 2016). And in any case, cutting discretionary and defense spending to 0 is an unobtainable watermark, as is taxing the rich at 100% as you point out. The deficits being run by Social Security and Medicare will only expand as the Baby Boomers retire. Can we agree there is no budget solution that does not include entitlement reform?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#120

Post by [deleted] »

disc wrote: post #106
teamonkey wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was no fast pass system and people were saying "I'm rich, I'm entitled to a system where people like me get to the front of the queue," then yes, suck it up.

That's the whole point of the article; the rich must perceive that they'll get additional value (ie., no waiting in line) before they'll voluntarily agree to pay additional taxes.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN