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

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#231

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:24 AM UTC

dangrossman wrote: post #195

yummyfajitas wrote: post #145

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) 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.

That doesn't mean much. First, if employers didn't pay it, they could increase compensation (either directly or via health benefits). Second, freelancers and temp workers pay both sides.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#232

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:27 AM UTC

jmulho wrote: post #177

tptacek wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, payroll taxes cost twice as much as that. Second, payroll taxes are capped; you stop paying them after ~100k. Third, your overall point is bankrupt. Regardless of what particular bucket of money their taxes are paid into, working people at all income levels are stung by our tax rates, which are in turn lower than virtually every other western industrialized nation. It is simply not the case that the working cl…

One: right. The employee pays 7.65%. The employer pays the other half. Two: right (the rate is actually 1.45% on wages over $106,800 in 2010) - the idea being that you shouldn't have to pay in infinitely given that the benefits are capped. Three: it is ironic that you mention bankruptcy... that is what tends to happen when the people making spending decisions face no direct consequences. Let me give you a scenario fo…

I don't know what point you're trying to make. You cited a payroll tax rate that was half what people really pay in, and implied that it was the same rate that wealthy people paid. Of course you were wrong on both counts. It takes no great insight to notice this; the same observation is at the center of Warren Buffet's complaint that his tax rate is effectively lower than his secretary's.

Your analysis is just dead wrong, and no hypothetical digs you out of it.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#233

Post by seabee » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:28 AM UTC

jarek wrote: post #175

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…

> Traffic was reduced for a few years but now it's just as bad as ever. Has the population changed?

It's probably more accurate to say that the infrastructure has gradually become... less amenable to cars, intentionally and otherwise. Bus lanes, pedestrianised roads, roadworks, that kind of thing.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#234

Post by daniel-cussen » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:40 AM UTC

zbanks wrote: post #230

ramanujan wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

It's also been shown that you can maximize the throughput of a highway if the speed limit is 45mph. Too high, and you need to increase the space between cars. Although 55mph != 45mph, it's pretty close. It also doesn't serve the individual, but if can't get the cars through fast enough, the traffic will build up eventually.

You could change the speed limit dynamically to always maximize throughput.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#235

Post by jarek » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:44 AM UTC

ramanujan wrote: post #219

jarek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

There is no state or province in North America with the kind of driving culture that exists in Germany.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#236

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:45 AM UTC

grego wrote: post #166

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.

Except why is it any business of anyone else's whether one wants to spend one's money or save it and pass it to one's children?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#237

Post by joshwa » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 1:57 AM UTC

1. Fix healthcare costs: single-payer.

Really. That's it.

$600B in administrative savings alone, which doesn't take into account the cost reductions that the system will achieve by negotiating rates downward.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#238

Post by uytrtyui » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:02 AM UTC

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.

Ikea is the most notorius tax avoider in the world.

The great swedish furniture company is actually a dutch charity.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#239

Post by redthrowaway » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

hackerblues wrote: post #205

redthrowaway wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe debt reduces your net worth. Irresponsible use of that debt does, but if I borrow $250k to buy a house, the value of that house offsets the debt. It's a wash in the end, is it not?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#240

Post by borism » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:19 AM UTC

othermaciej wrote: post #208

borism wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

no, actually I don't have an opinion whether swedish system is good or bad, as I haven't experienced it personally, only heard and read about it and know few people who had problems with it. in the end they seem to be doing fine.

but I think there needs to be more optimal solution than just equity compensation or just cash-salary compensation.