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

211–220 of 358 posts

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#211

Post by xyzzyb »

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…

"You are descended from royalty":http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=5...

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#212

Post by nostrademons »

hackerblues wrote: post #207
nostrademons wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think it's held throughout history, but then again, throughout history most of the world has had some sort of aristocracy.

The historical exception is the U.S. from 1945 to 1973, as well as perhaps a few other examples (maybe Scandinavia today, or the U.S. in the early/mid 1800s?). In that time period - really, no more than a generation - we saw a big leveling of income distribution, where people born to modest families suddenly had the creature comforts that a generation before had been reserved for the aristocracy. I think most people would agree that this is a generally desirable state for a society, so it might be worth asking what was different about those time periods that made them the historical exception?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#213

Post by othermaciej »

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…

I see that you are trying to get in the spirit of coming up with the "bad version". Communism has been tried before, and it didn't work very well.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#214

Post by Pinckney »

pistoriusp wrote: post #186
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.

Exactly, this kind of thinking freaks me out. They want to take property from people who have earned it precisely for having earned it! It's theft, it's looting, and it's slavery! You cannot take one man's property and give it to another based on need.

By living and working in a country such is America, you are accepting a social contract: if you do well, you will be taxed, if you do poorly, you will at least receive some services to support you. This strikes me as an entirely reasonable contract, though there are others that are different. In Abu Dubai, you can do well, and keep all your money, or do poorly and wind up in debtor's prison.

To complain that you're taxed too heavily after you have already become wealthy and secure strikes me as akin to looking back on your healthy, illness free life and complain that you should get a refund on your insurance payments, since they didn't do anything for you.

The above is not to argue that one system is superior to the other, but rather that you're in one, and very probably complaining about it now that you know you're well prepared enough that it's clear that you'll probably never be destitute.

In a perfect world, we might ask everyone how much risk they want. Unfortunately, so much is determined in your youth. You (I assume) grew up in a family that raised you well, and left you with reasonable earning potential. If we just asked everyone at 18, we would wind up with an upper class that would rarely suffer financial failures, and would accept risk, and those who know they won't get rich on their own, and accept no risk, and so for the most part, this system would be unfundable. As a compromise, and as many of us feel quite strongly that it's simply not acceptable to have people destroyed when they suffer financial ruin, we have some basic social services.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#215

Post by alsomike »

gjm11 wrote: post #190
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…

> The government awards tax credits for everyone making less than that [...] > [...] dividing the total US income by the number of workers [...] So, for that $90k figure to be attainable, you need those who aren't "workers" not to get any of this money. Which means that becoming a "worker" will suddenly mean getting an extra $90k/year, whatever the job. Which means that there will almost certainly suddenly be a lot m…

> Which means that there will almost certainly suddenly be a lot more "workers".

You mean a low unemployment rate?

> Your system relies on taking away a great deal of money from rich people... the more you do it the harder those rich people are going to try to avoid paying

Not really, no. Money in excess of $90k isn't confiscated, it's still used to purchase status just as it is today. The only difference is that it's purchased from the government instead of BMW, De Beers, etc. Status markers are essentially arbitrary anyway, why not just have a single number? It's much more efficient.

> suppose that every employer that currently pays anyone $(90k+x)/year decides to pay them, say, $(90k+0.1x)/year

They could do that, and it would lower everyone's rank. This would cause some people to quit those jobs and find other jobs that offered more status, lowering supply and causing the price to go up again. If salaries drop because of market forces, the savings would be used to invest in the business: hiring other employees, improving operating efficiency, R&D, etc.

> they also want to get rich because wealth brings large houses, etc.

Any income above $75k doesn't contribute to personal happiness, and standard income is already 20% above that. Luxury goods don't contribute to happiness, they're just a wasteful and inefficient way of signaling status. That money that could be used to improve lives or fund innovation.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#216

Post by daimyoyo »

We live in a society that uses fiat currency so why does it matter how much we're in debt? Why can't we simply say "that $12,000,000,000,000 we owed? We just hit a triple word score and we have it in the bank now." The USA has carried a debt for the last 190 years and we haven't gone bankrupt yet.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#217

Post by izendejas »

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.

Of all those that agree with such argument, I'd like to get an answer to these questions:

1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't, you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a well-nourished and healthy work-force that is more intelligent, stronger and efficient? 2c) what price tag do you pay to ensure that everyone has access to a world-class education (again, compare to a third-world country, I know ours sucks compared to others') that is again, more knowledgeable, more creative, etc and will one day help you boost margins, compete globally, etc?

And I could go on...

You see.. safety goes hand in hand with: 1) economic stability 2) health (ever wonder why some people risk their own lives to cross borders? their families are starving/dying!) 3) education 4) and much more than just a strong military, uncorrupt/just police/court system

And those things cost money. If you'd rather grow wealthy in another country, I dare you to try! And if you're already wealthy and you think taxing you more is unfair, I dare you to move to countries like Mexico where many business owners now have to pay "taxes" to drug gangs or else, they just don't go to prison, they get killed!

I'm not arguing that our tax system doesn't need reform or that current rates are fair, I'm arguing that if you want to be wealthy one day or are already, it's in your best interest to contribute more. Consider it an investment where you can. Yes, surely there is waste, but focus on that, don't whine about the fact that you're getting punished because YOU ARE NOT... you were rewarded with all these great opportunities and public goods and services you seem to take for granted, that's all (again, see my first question above).

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#218

Post by josh33 »

daimyoyo wrote: post #216

We live in a society that uses fiat currency so why does it matter how much we're in debt? Why can't we simply say "that $12,000,000,000,000 we owed? We just hit a triple word score and we have it in the bank now." The USA has carried a debt for the last 190 years and we haven't gone bankrupt yet.

Because Fiat currency is a representation of a promise that is paid for with human life, rather than a precious resource. Our debt is a guarantee that american tax payers have to pay OR the government will need to declare bankruptcy of sorts.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#219

Post by ramanujan »

jarek wrote: post #108
dustinupdyke wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph, there are larger issues at hand than how much this ticket will cost you. Yes, speed limits are to an extent arbitrary, but practical alternative is a total judgment call. Do you always know the entirety of the condition of your car, and if not, should you be limited to 30 mph? Should drivers' licenses include a quantifiable evaluation of your skill and abili…

> practical alternative is a total judgment call

Right. So is the Autobahn actually all that accident prone?

55 was initially marketed as something that saved gas. After that was debunked, it was changed to "55 saves lives".

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#220

Post by spankythemonk »

maeon3 wrote: post #23

Tax the rich too much and then they stop creating jobs for all you whiners who can't hold on to your money. The whole notion of taxing the rich more than the poor seems unfair, what makes you worthy of benefits and him worthy of a penalty? Just because he was more responsible and hard working than you were? Americans are not broke, it's the government that is broke and instead of take the negative consequences, they…

> Tax the rich too much and then they stop creating jobs for all you whiners who can't hold on to your money.

This is true. You're essentially increasing the tax burden on the entrepreneur class. This means less money spent on business formation, job creation and capital investment. The last thing that the US Economy needs right now. Not only that, but many "rich" might just decide to leave the country and go somewhere where they are allowed to keep the money they earn. What will you tax then?

Taxing the rich is a stupid policy. Look at the unintended consequences. There are two sides to every coin.

The problem with the US economy is simply that there is too much government and it's choking the private sector like a giant parasite killing it's host. CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

Post reply on HN