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

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#161

Post by megaman821 » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:11 PM UTC

pmorici wrote: post #158

megaman821 wrote: post #53

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,…

Are the rich actually taxed at a higher rate? The first x dollars of income are taxed at the same rate for everyone aren't they?

Kinda, they reach a higher tier of taxes. For example, money above $200K is taxed at a higher rate than $1 to $200K. So their first $200K is taxed just like everyone else's money up to $200k. By taxing the rich, everyone means increasing the tax rate at the highest tiers.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#162

Post by jpwagner » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:13 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #110

klbarry wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Eric Schmidt would pay some pennies? (Since he is paid $1 a year :) )

One might assume that the system has a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation.

fat chance...maybe the above joke is silly, but no one has "a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation."

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#163

Post by borism » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:17 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #110

klbarry wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Eric Schmidt would pay some pennies? (Since he is paid $1 a year :) )

One might assume that the system has a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation.

In Sweden equity compensation is made so prohibitively expensive it ensures that everyone gets paid more or less appropriate market salary.

Of course very rich guys have their workarounds anyway, for example I recall reading that Ingvar Kamprad pays himself avg IKEA worker salary. Still better than those ridiculous $1 salaries of SV execs.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#164

Post by aamar » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:25 PM UTC

abrenzel wrote: post #124

Vivtek wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Repub…

The 2011 SS deficit is expected to reverse in 2012 and does not represent a short-term crisis. It would be much more sensible to bring up dates like 2025 -- when SS is projected to start dipping into principal -- and 2037 -- when the principal would be exhausted, if no policies are changed [1]. I support long-term planning to remedy the situation, but it seems to hinder productive discussion when someone implies SS will be unable to send out checks tomorrow or in the next decade.

Medicare: Chris Christie is a state governor so has no meaningful relationship to Medicare; you are probably referring to proposals to cut Medicaid benefits for the poor/indigent. This is not very similar to issues affecting Medicare. Paul Ryan does have a legitimate proposal for limiting Medicare growth (I suspect it will increase inefficiency and decrease health outcomes overall, maybe disproportionately for the poor), but it is a legitimate approach.

But: the stimulus & healthcare reform both already contain several very serious efforts to improve Medicare efficiency long-term, especially IPAB. Its short term savings are relatively small, but this is a deeply good (Democrat-associated) proposal.

[1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/the-social-secu...

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#165

Post by JeffL » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:26 PM UTC

I reject the premise of the entire article that "The hole is too big to plug with cost cutting or economic growth alone." The hole was created by increasing spending, it can be closed by reducing spending.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#166

Post by grego » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

How about just let the rich be rich and get richer, but making it very hard to pass on inheritance. So their kids would be on equal playing field with everybody else. That would make it their vested interest to improve conditions in that field for all.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#167

Post by scythe » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:33 PM UTC

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.

The rich are taxed a lot? They're taxed at a lower level than any other time in the past twenty years -- that's not a lot. The richest people around today -- Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Buffett -- made a significant portion of their money during a time (the '90s) when the top marginal rate was higher than today's. Clearly, that didn't stop them!

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#168

Post by jarek » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

jpwagner wrote: post #162

jarek wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might assume that the system has a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation.

fat chance...maybe the above joke is silly, but no one has "a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation."

What are some legal ways for an individual to be compensated that wouldn't appear in the tax documentation of either the individual or the company in question?

"Legal" is used here to mean "would stand up in a court of law in the relevant jurisdiction."

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#169

Post by getsat » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:36 PM UTC

alsomike wrote: post #137

yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You might want to go read Atlas Shrugged.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#170

Post by jpwagner » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 9:51 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #168

jpwagner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fat chance...maybe the above joke is silly, but no one has "a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation."

What are some legal ways for an individual to be compensated that wouldn't appear in the tax documentation of either the individual or the company in question? "Legal" is used here to mean "would stand up in a court of law in the relevant jurisdiction."

The fact is that if Eric Schmidt were fined 100% of his "net worth" he would be among the rich again within a year or two.

Suppose a professional gambler made exactly the same amount as Eric Schmidt per year. This "system" would fine them equally. But the gambler relies on his bankroll as his asset, whereas Schmidt relies on his reputation and personal network.

How can you make this fair?