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

131–140 of 358 posts

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#131

Post by BlazingFrog »

I think most of the rich people as described in the article (top 2%) already get most, if not all, of the perks he lists. It may not be in the law, but make no mistake. These people don't go to the DMV (who cares about the express lane), don't read their own mail (so much for gratitude letters), often don't drive their own car (carpool eligible in most places), don't care about social services and how much they cost and already have a large influence on the election process.

Scott feels as if he's "on a path toward certain doom" when paying attention to news. In my case it's when I think about how little hope there is to radically change the system considering that the people in charge are the ones who profit the most from that system, by a long shot.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#132

Post by forensic »

viraptor wrote: post #46
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.

First steps - maybe, but does it really have to be full aristocracy? What if the ideas were just a really simple separate ideas not affecting others in more than 2% of some arbitrary measure for each of them? If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc.…

>If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc. - this way if someone actually wanted the privilege, but wasn't "really rich", they could still get it - not a total aristocracy and noone is forced to do anything.

This is completely different because everyone would be eligible for the Lexus Lane. It's very likely that plenty of middle-class people would choose to pay for it. The defining characteristic of an aristocracy is special rights under the law for an elite class. All you're talking about is a service the government is offering with an aim to profit.

Scott Adams on the other hand is talking about restricting to the top 2%. That's what makes it an aristocracy.

I'm not saying a visible aristocracy codified in legislation is bad.

Also I don't think your concept "full aristocracy" has meaning. All aristocracies exist on a sliding scale somewhere between "Lexus Lanes" and "slavery".

Anyway personally I'm not really against a visible aristocracy. I actually think it probably makes sense to recognize power, because at least then there would be accountability.

If Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are unofficial Kings due to their enormous wealth, it's probably actually a good thing to make them official Kings because then they become accountable for getting results. Everyone would know who to blame - King Bill III.

That puts all the incentives in order.

I kind of suspect that our current elected officials are mostly just a trivial front-end for the true deciders who prefer to remain invisible because then they can't get lynched. Making them visible doesn't seem like much of a negative to me.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#133

Post by scrod »

aj700 wrote: post #48

Communism sucks, so there's no alternative to the 0.1% (winner) takes all (80%) system that we've got. Of course we have a "vampire squid on our face" (GS) but it seems to be necessary to allow technological progress and the industrialisation of the rest of the world We have scarcity now, but it won't last. Money will be abolished. The question is how do we spend money now to bring about the end of scarcity sooner. W…

>Communism sucks, so there's no alternative to the 0.1% (winner) takes all (80%) system that we've got.

Wow, thanks for making things so clear. I had no idea that the alternative to our emerging world of total corporate feudalism was straight-up dictatorial Stalinism! Who'd-a thunkit?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#134

Post by davorak »

axod wrote: post #76

Taxing the rich (even more than they are already which IMHO is a lot ) is just punishing success and rewarding failure.

With out the community and the government those opportunities to get rich would not exist.

If the perfect world the rational rich person might realize this and protect and improve the system that allow people like himself to be possible.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#135

Post by anorwell »

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?

It's not far off. The US deficit in 2010 was $1.42 trillion, while discretionary spending was $1.36 trillion [1]. The total household income in 2006 was ~$7 trillion [2], of which the top 1% ("rich") make over 20%, which would be around $1.4 trillion in 2006. Presumably the number is lower in 2010. Additionally, we couldn't really take 100% of that money in taxes, because they are already being taxed at 40% or so. It's not clear to me how to calculate total corporation income, but the deficit is about 10% of the GDP, so it's probably not true.

As far as I can tell, none of these numbers are exceptional (percentage-wise) compared to other countries.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budg...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... - mean income*number of households

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/us-income-gap-rich-...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_pub...

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#136

Post by argv_empty »

pnathan wrote: post #38
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…

I like the idea of taxing all income at a fixed and flat rate, no exceptions, no exemptions, credits, deferrals, whatever. It's a terrible idea, but it is also, by definition, perfectly equitable.

That depends on whether the law of diminishing marginal utility applies to money.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#137

Post by alsomike »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #52
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 re…

My tax plan is to eliminate income tax up to $90,000. After that, income is taxed at 100%. The government awards tax credits for everyone making less than that, so that everyone's salary + tax credits = $90,000.

"But wait," you say "How will we incentivize entrepreneurs if they can't earn more money?" For everyone making over $90,000 (approx. 11% of the population), their pretax salary is used to assign them national ranking that's publicly available, much like a ladder tournament, which could be subdivided into regions, industries, etc.

The rationale for this system is that we use one system - money - for two unrelated social purposes: reducing suffering and establishing status which incentivizes production. In my system, these purposes are less coupled.

The $90,000 number was calculated by dividing the total US income by the number of workers, so this would need to be adjusted yearly. If this system was applied globally, the average salary would be $25,000 which is quite a step up for billions of people. It means that today, humans create enough wealth annually so that every two-parent household on the planet could live like the American middle class.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#138

Post by jbooth »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #60

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…

You only pay SS on your first 105k or so of income (indexed to inflation).

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#139

Post by anorwell »

abrenzel wrote: post #127
Quarrelsome wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Medicare is for health coverage, and most countries give this to everyone, all the time, for nominal cost. Unless I'm missing something here.

Although, US public per capita health expenditure is about equal to other countries. It just happens that they get far far less for what they pay. [1]

[1] http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_2649_34111_3615779... - see health chart

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#140

Post by sambeau »

If I could, I would link tax paying to the National Lottery. The more tax you pay the bigger your chance of winning big.

It would make a refreshing change to see people queueing up on a Saturday night, desperate to pay their tax.

Post reply on HN