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

121–130 of 358 posts

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#121

Post by Quarrelsome »

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…

Wait, wha? I thought the US was one of the nations that paid the least in social benefits in the western world. I mean France _really_ need to look at their social spending, but the US? I figured they barely bothered (relatively speaking).

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#122

Post by lmkg »

I think several of Scott Adam's proposals would be more palatable if we avoid the T-word. Giving high tax payers an express lane at the DMV smacks of elitism and pandering. But, giving an "express process" option for $1k doesn't sound so bad to me. Someone else mentioned auctioning off carpool-lane passes, it's a similar principle.

More importantly, it directly ties the cost to the reward. The biggest problem with Adam's system is that if you don't directly tie revenue to entitlements, then the rich would still push for lower taxes, while also wanting to keep the corresponding entitlements. The connection between the two has to be strong enough to resist politics.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#123

Post by pmiller2 »

jimmyjim wrote: post #75
wigginus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many European countries adjust the fines to ones wealth: For example Switzerland: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10960230

And I want to point out that it makes very much sense to have fines adjusted to one's wealth. When speeding, you're endangering people's lives. There has to be some measure that will make you think twice about speeding the next time around -- if you know that the ticket fine will be a paltry amount to you (relative to your total wealth), that is no deterrent.

Fines aren't the deterrent. The deterrent is that points on your license lead to higher insurance rates and eventual loss of driving privileges.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#124

Post by abrenzel »

Vivtek wrote: post #100
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…

no one in my generation (I am currently 24) will see either of these programs as our parents did. You're gonna laugh, but I thought the same thing when I was 24 (twenty years ago) and Social Security is still solvent for the next thirty. That system ain't broke. It's just that they really, really, really want that money. If they manage to get us to break it for them, your pessimism is - quite literally - a self-fulfi…

These things often take longer to unwind themselves than you'd expect. Still, the CBO projections are pretty clear, and we now know that Social Security is officially in deficit this year. Medicare has been so for a long time. In truth, Medicare is where the real troubles lie. I have only seen a handful of politicians try to address this honestly. Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are who come to mind. They are both Republicans, so if there are any Democrats out there talking about it, please excuse me for not remembering their names.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#125

Post by abrenzel »

harryh wrote: post #114
ryanf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Thanks for supplying those numbers harryh!

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#126

Post by MrFoof »

100k wrote: post #69
bluedevil2k wrote: post #2

I like the "rich" driving lane idea - put up X licenses for auction in each city, let people bid up the price, let the market decide how much time is worth.

This is pretty much the idea behind congestion charges (for example in London). New York City tried to institute them, but the State Assembly stopped them (basically suburban interests trumped city interests). It would have made a big difference in commute times by lowering traffic congestion and the nice thing is that those that benefit pay.

There is one fundamental issue to congestion charges however: You are not paying for the ability to use privileged roads, you're paying to use all roads, because under a congestion charge, all roads are considered a privilege.

Carpool lanes work better in this regard. For example, on 93N heading into Boston, you can use 93N for free. If you have at least 2 people in the car (and I think hybrids and EVs are allowed as well), you can use the carpool lane. However, if you were almost always by yourself, but could pay $2000/year to get a placard to drive in the carpool lane, people would certainly pay it. Motorists without passengers are not required to pay to drive on 93N, however any motorist willing to pay ~$8/workday for the convenience therefore has the option -- that may even exclude the rich, just those who live far enough away from Boston and commuter rail stations where they need the drive (or feel the need to) and are willing to pay for a shorter commute time.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I like it. If you are actively working towards eliminating congestion by carpooling, you still get it gratis. If you're reducing emissions by driving an EV or Hybrid, you get it gratis until that allowance sunsets, because you're making a positive impact with your vehicle choice. Yet if you're willing to just pay... hey, we'll let you in too, so that money can go towards improving something. I like this. I'm trying to find how anyone loses with this idea, because you can still use the four lanes on 93 like anyone else does for free.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#127

Post by abrenzel »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #121
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…

Wait, wha? I thought the US was one of the nations that paid the least in social benefits in the western world. I mean France _really_ need to look at their social spending, but the US? I figured they barely bothered (relatively speaking).

The US certainly pays out fewer of the sort of benefits we would call "welfare" (unemployment, food stamps, EITCs, etc.) than most nations in the Western world. Our pension systems are as generous as anyone's though, particularly Medicare. That is the real source of the trouble.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#128

Post by axod »

benohear wrote: post #116
axod wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know it's how it was sold, but I disagree with it. We should have let the bad companies fail and the good ones succeed.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#129

Post by ryanf »

harryh wrote: post #114
ryanf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

OK, so that covers the first sentence, except maybe "because of entitlements." (Although you'll note that without TARP we'd be just about breaking even in that scenario.)

It doesn't cover the second half, which claims that taxing "the rich" at 100% wouldn't cover the deficit even though the total income of the richest 1% of Americans is almost as much as the entire federal budget. (23.9% of income, GDP is 14.27T, 14.27 * 0.239 = 3.41T)

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#130

Post by megaman821 »

neilk wrote: post #98
megaman821 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consumption tax doesn't have to be a flat tax. You pay more tax for a pack a cigarettes than a pack of paper. Peter Theil makes about 200x more a year than the average person, but he doesn't have to consume 200 times more than the average person if all the items he wants to buy are at a much higher tax rate. They only way to avoid the tax is to not buy luxury items, and if a billionaire wants to live the life of…

You're taxing the wrong thing. Your idea would be great if we wanted billionaires to act like regular joes. But generally, in North America, we don't care about that. The problem was about fixing the deficit. yummyfajitas was right: consumption taxes are generally considered regressive. Also, the rich, or even the professional class, have many more options to disguise their consumption as business expenses.

The point is billionaires won't live like regular joes. You think just because the tax is higher they will start purchasing a Timex instead of a Rolex?

Even now it would be hard to justify a $100k car as a business expense, with a simplified sales and property tax code it would be even easier to stop.

Post reply on HN