Wealth and Taxes
johnhcochrane.blogspot.com
Wealth and Taxes
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#2Option one. $400,000 retirement.
Purchase BTC, claim a loss after it moves down even 0.03% in most places of the world, move to bermuda, convert BTC to Bermudian dollar, pay 0% income and 0% federal tax.
Purchase property, enjoy golf courses and beaches all day.
Option two. $350,000 retirement. Go to Thailand, get a beach house, and live off the currency conversion rate, enjoy the beach.
Option three. Personal favorite. $900,000 Leverage XAU/USD based on fundumentals alone at 70x leverage in week long swing trades, averages per trend about $10k a week per $100k on 70x leverage. (PrimeXBT is a great low fee place)
Other fantastic investments are buying vending machines and putting them in laundromats, cost $3,200 for one and to stock it and they average $600 a month. Buy a functional AirBNB with a loan.
Sources to look at, Robert Kiyosaki's 4 business quadrants.
Remember, wealth does not have to be a number, its not all about money, its about freedom. Best of luck from a BTC millionaire, ~wolf
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#3This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year.
That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth.
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#4This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doc…
> This completely misses the political angle.
The political angle that your comment does play to is the reason why many people find the "income inequality" argument rings hollow.
The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda.
Often the people on the picket lines are in the income classes of the "doctors" in your example.
Sure they don't have near the influence of a robber baron, but they're worlds ahead of a lowly immigrant landscaper.
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#5This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doc…
Of course he misses the political angle, if he discussed it, soon enough people would clamour for the revolution.
There is William Hinton's book Fanshen, a personal account of the author of the Chinese revolution in a rural village. One of the early chapters describes the struggle for power, and how money is converted into power. It's recommended reading, you don't have to agree with his political opinion, but it does give the backstory.
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#6Is there a tl;dr or any context whatsoever?
There's absolutely no introduction or conclusion to this article that tells me what the author is trying to explain, or what angle he's taking or why.
Also this is "part II" of a 3-part article... I'm curious if there's a reason I'm missing as to why this is being submitted instead of parts I or III?
I'm just 100% lost here... :S If anyone could help explain the context for this submission, it would be much appreciated.
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#7This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doc…
> That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth.
Tax rates decrease at the very top of the income spectrum because our tax codes make a deliberate choice to preferentially tax investments and capital gains.
You’re assuming that choice is the result of “corrosive” factors, namely the wealthy having more political power. But that’s a loaded assumption. Most economists agree that preferential tax rates on capital gains is better for the economy. That’s why almost every tax code in the developed world has that feature. I don’t think you can just assume the only reason for that is the super wealthy having disproportionate political power.
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#8This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doc…
> This completely misses the political angle. The political angle that your comment does play to is the reason why many people find the "income inequality" argument rings hollow. The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda. Often the people on the picket lines are in the income classes of the "doctors" in your example. Sure they don't have near the influence of a robber baron,…
> The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda.
With all due respect I don’t think this is true. Besides, as income level goes up, people are more likely to be a blue voter than a red voter[1], a fact people have a hard time believing.
Arguably 2016 was the poor, lower middle class (one of the least represented demographics in America) rising up and rejecting globalism. They affected change, was it not the kind that you expected?
After all, what class do people think the “deplorables” are? A bunch of rich dentists?
1. https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identific...
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#9This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doc…
The article is definitely not "missing" the political angle; that part is addressed. The point is that it's indeed a question about politics, not economics. By advocating that people having 1 billion in assets should have some of their assets taxed away, you're essentially saying that our political processes are so screwy that on average, someone with say, 1 billion in assets can be expected to use the flaws of our political processes to inflict real, actual damages on the order of, say, $100M on third parties (compared to the most feasible alternative outcome) and that they should be paying restitution for those expected damages. While this may be in fact an appropriate description of a number of countries outside the highly-developed West, it definitely doesn't describe, say, Western Europe, or even the U.S.! Our current President is an exceptional case, he's nowhere close to the norm of all billionaires, and policy should not be set as if he was.
Re: Wealth and Taxes
#10This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doc…
> That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth. Tax rates decrease at the very top of the income spectrum because our tax codes make a deliberate choice to preferentially tax investments and capital gains. You’re assuming that choice is the result of “co…
Already the Brookings Institution (center, center-left, center-right, depending whom you ask) disagrees: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-lo...