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

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#191

Post by eavc » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

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…

You could maybe reward the wealthy in the same way people currently reward philanthropists -- offer to name things for them.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#192

Post by nostrademons » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:38 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #144

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.

Aristocracy is different from this. Generally, aristocracy is both hereditary and disconnected from actual wealth. In the UK, JK Rowling, even though she is richer than the Queen, is not an aristocrat. She is, in fact, upper middle class. Someone who's born into the aristocracy, even if they're not especially wealthy, is an aristocrat.

I wonder if we're headed towards a hereditary aristocracy as well, because of assortative mating. People tend to marry others in the same social class; rich marry rich, smart marry smart, and highly-educated marry highly-educated. And then they tend to pass on those advantages to their children. It doesn't take all that many generations before that becomes entrenched and it becomes impossible to jump from one class to another.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#193

Post by javert » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:40 PM UTC

davorak wrote: post #134

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.

The government only helps the rich to the degree that it provides courts, police, and military. Beyond that, it's looting them.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#194

Post by javert » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:42 PM UTC

jimminy wrote: post #109

benohear wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The whole industry didn't fall. It was about a dozen extremely large insitutions, and the extremely small institutions that depended on that group. There were institutions in the middle who weren't involved in the mess. See BB&T, as an example, they were actually forced by the government to accept a bailout, as to make it seem like the whole industry failed.

Agreed. The whole industry bailout was a huge punishment to BB&T, which otherwise probably would have profited tremendously from taking over much of the business of the failed banks.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#195

Post by dangrossman » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:42 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #145

jmulho wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

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) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the federal payroll tax was about 15%. Your employer is only allowed to list 7.65% on your pay stub/W2, but that's a different thing.

The employer is paying half of it.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#196

Post by reubenyeah » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:44 PM UTC

megablast wrote: post #181

seabee wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London Popular and successful with who, exactly? I don't know a single person that likes it. Traffic was reduced for a few years but now it's just as bad as ever. And the cost of public transport continually rises above inflation. At least they recently shrank the chargable area. So what has it done, exactly, except raise income for the city and raise pr…

I like it, lots of my friends like it as well. If they did not enact it, things on the road would be worse. They just need to make it more. The cost of public transport is ridiculous, London has to be the most expensive city to travel around.

Really?

You think £1.30 to get a bus as far as you like is expensive? and £4 to get as many buses as you like in a day is expensive?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#197

Post by Devilboy » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

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.

Nothing stops the middle class from buying gold instead of keeping their money in a cash account. Once you change the system the people will adapt.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#198

Post by georgecmu » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #185

georgecmu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that institutionalized speeding would be very successful both in terms of additional revenues and time saved. Right now highway speed limits are set to a sort of common denominator: safest for the worst car and driver on the road. But if you're driving a modern, well-maintained car and are adequately trained, there's no evidence that you'd be unsafe driving 20 mph over the speed limit. So, why not fo…

The thing that makes speeding unsafe (up to a point) is not so much the speed itself but the delta between the slowest and fastest cars on the road.

Correct, except I would say "in the lane" rather than "on the road". Congestion would limit the speed naturally, but existing regulations such as 'slower vehicles stay in right lane' etc would actually have to be enforced for this to work.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#199

Post by forgottenpaswrd » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #151

va_coder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and old people on fixed income.

If you work for the post office or are a teacher, for example, your pension adjusts for inflation. Other govt jobs are similar? So, inflating out of the problem won't help here.

Not true. Your pension adjust for OFFICIAL inflation, I invite you to make a simple shopping cart on Excel with your most important expenses and compare with official figures. Official's is allays less(all govs massage the numbers as there is so much money at stake).

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#200

Post by wazoox » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

dustinupdyke wrote: post #104

jimmyjim wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get what you are saying here, but I think the questions generated by this statement are numerous: "When speeding, you're endangering people's lives." Does this mean 56 mph is, and 55 is not dangerous somehow? By what science is this the case? What about weather conditions? The condition of your car? The type of your car? Your skill and ability to drive? Also, the randomness with which this law is enforced is troubl…

> By what science is this the case?

Obviously, an old guy in a very old rusty driving at 5 mph over the limit is more dangerous than a young professional nascar pilot, running a brand new porsche at the same speed.

However this is a bout equality versus equity. Equity means : you pay fines proportionally to what you earn; on the other hand you could then discuss the fact that different drivers and different vehicles may be treated differently (for instance, the speed limit is the speed at which your vehicle comes to full stop in 2.5 seconds). equality means everybody is treated the same way. The current system tends to equality, but is not equitable.