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

201–210 of 358 posts

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#201

Post by [deleted] »

megaman821 wrote: post #130
neilk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#202

Post by redthrowaway »

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's wrong with rise in net worth over a year?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#203

Post by nostrademons »

ams6110 wrote: post #187
teamonkey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By skipping the lines at amusement parks, those who don't pay extra have to wait even longer for their turn than they would if that system wasn't in place. So in effect, those who pay more benefit and simultaneously penalise those who do not.

No because if the fast line didn't exist the regular line would be longer. total waiting, on average, is the same.

Not quite. New elements are inserted at the end of the regular line, but at the head of the fast line. When you first enter the regular line, this doesn't matter, because everybody (fast line or regular line) would've gotten there before you in the regular line. However, every person that arrives in the fast line after you take your place in the regular line goes before you, yet would've gone after you if the fast line didn't exist.

Total waiting time is the same, but that's not the stat you care about. Your waiting time, as someone in the regular line, is. And that's increased by each person that arrives in the fast line while you are waiting. Their short waiting times are compensated by your long waiting times.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#204

Post by alsomike »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #150
alsomike wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok - if your system is ever enacted, I'm cutting my work hours back by 50% or more. I'm also hoping that not everyone does this, because if everyone did, there would be far less than $90k/person floating around. But that won't happen, right? 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. This assumes that the total…

That's fine, you'd get 50% of the tax credit.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#205

Post by hackerblues »

redthrowaway wrote: post #202
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's wrong with rise in net worth over a year?

If I go into debt that year does that mean the fine gives me money?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#206

Post by nickpp »

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.

But those opportunities are available to everybody. Why should the reach be the ones paying more for them?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#207

Post by hackerblues »

nostrademons wrote: post #192
philwelch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Do you have any reason to believe that this trend has not held throughout history?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#208

Post by othermaciej »

borism wrote: post #163
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.

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.

It sounds like you are against equity compensation and in favor of the Swedish laws that make it prohibitively expensive. Why is that? US technology startups are heavily based on equity compensation, so probably many folks here would assume it is a good thing.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#209

Post by dhugiaskmak »

javert wrote: post #193
davorak wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So true. Everyone knows that every businessman has completely bootstrapped from scratch all of the roads, utilities, schools, hospitals, scientific research, and a thousand other things that they took advantage of to make their fortunes. No one else made any contributions to their success and that's why it's only fair that we should be required to hand over a significant portion of our incomes to them.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#210

Post by joelhaus »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #150
alsomike wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok - if your system is ever enacted, I'm cutting my work hours back by 50% or more. I'm also hoping that not everyone does this, because if everyone did, there would be far less than $90k/person floating around. But that won't happen, right? 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. This assumes that the total…

Sounds a little bit like the NFL: http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/nfl/14905

The major sports leagues in the U.S. (football/basketball/baseball) are definitely an interesting microcosm of various economic systems.

Post reply on HN