Live data from Hacker News

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

reuters.com

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#191
post #106
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Americans already get taxed on their bank balance, by their bank, inversely proportionate to how much they have, so it's not alien from that side - and it's also pretty much identical to real estate taxes which people are already used to paying... in fact a good way to sell a wealth tax might be by saying "Hey, you know how you pay taxes on your property? There are people out there so rich that they've g…

Sure, but if you understand this concept, you're not likely mistaking wealth for income on a survey.

Oh - that's why I mentioned it... if you wanted to ensure fairness it might be a good tactic to state the question with a clear analogy like property taxes as a reference.

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#192
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the majority of Americans believe that everyone should live a decent life rather than a few random people living stupid wealthy lives while others suffer in poverty. I do agree that the sentiment is pretty deeply ingrained in American culture though, for a long time people have voted and advocated against their own interests because one day they might win the lottery and somehow make it through the insane taxes t…

This doesn’t address my point. The majority of Americans are not wealthy, so of course the majority thinks that.

I think down this road leads a tautology because most classical definitions of consensus are such that taxing the wealthy more than the poor is considered a fair and equitable consensus. I don't like to leave assumptions and definitions unexamined so here's an analogy, most people who murdered steve don't believe that people who murdered steve should be punished for it - even though the majority of the population disagrees with that view we need to defend the minority of people that just murdered steve less their opinions be swept under by a tyrannical and unreasonable majority.

The majority absolutely can be tyrannical and the court of popular opinion is not considered the sole ethical decider - see philosophical discussions about whether certain historical events in the 1940s led to a society where some pretty extreme actions actually qualified as ethical. The society they occurred in publicly and openly approved of those actions but most of us would hesitate to call those actions ethical so there is merit in being hesitant to call the apparent ruling of the court of public opinion a consensus, but I think this particular case is more valid and self-reinforcing.

Interesting question though.

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#193
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would venture a guess that "property tax" doesn't quite feel the same as a wealth tax to most people, because most people don't have a paid-off house, so it's just one more component of their mortgage (and paid through an escrow account rather than directly). If you're paying a large aggregated bill anyway, it feels like just one more tax associated with money changing hands. If your house is fully paid off, such t…

> I would venture a guess that "property tax" doesn't quite feel the same as a wealth tax to most people I mean, who cares? This is a tax on people with eight figure fortunes we're talking about. The only issue at hand was can the unwashed masses grok the basic concept here. The answer is of course they can. Sometimes you pay tax on value you earn, sometimes on value you give away, and sometimes on value you have. We…

I don't care all that much about the taxes of people who have tens of millions, and I'm all for finding ways to fund better safety nets.

I do care that such taxes have a tendency to spread to lower tax brackets, once they're perceived as acceptable at all. I don't want to see wealth taxes being assessed on people in the "finally paid off the house" bracket, or the "successfully saved for retirement" bracket. And as long as those brackets are above the median wealth, there's a serious danger of that happening. It's much easier to argue against wealth taxes before they exist at all, and much harder to continuously keep them from affecting more people.

(Example: if wealth taxes become acceptable, I would not be at all surprised if people in areas where houses still cost 5 figures support wealth taxes at a level that affects people just like them who happen to live in areas where houses cost more. Arbitrary wealth taxes are not a power I trust politicians with, no matter how much they promise not to abuse them now.)

I also care that such taxes require much more invasive information-gathering (of much fuzzier information) to assess. (The value of property that isn't directly denominated in currency and isn't in the process of being bought or sold for currency is quite fuzzy.) Other parts of this thread already cover various aspects of that issue, though.

> Sometimes you pay tax on value you earn, sometimes on value you give away, and sometimes on value you have.

Taxes on "value you have" are quite rare; taxes on homes/land are just about the only common example, and those are already controversial for a variety of reasons.

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#194
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should let politicians sneak this through unless we're confident that the public actually understands what is being proposed. We shouldn't let politicians sneak this through regardless of what the public understands. Taxation is theft.

That's a rather extreme viewpoint, I would counter with the view that actual theft is theft and taxation paying to apprehend criminals, recover stolen property and discourage crime is actually the only thing between us and rampant theft.

I don't think it's extreme at all. It only seems that way because we've all be conditioned to accept taxation as something normal. But there's no particular reason why that must be so. And, as Bastiat points out, the Law is nothing more than the collective extension to our individual rights, and so can have no legitimate authority beyond what an individual can do. I can't collect money from you under threat of use of violent force, no matter how noble my intentions for that money. Ergo, "the law" / "the state" / "society" likewise have no standing to do so, except "might makes right".

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#195
post #11

> A wealth tax is levied on an individual’s net worth, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, as well as cash holdings, similar in concept to property taxes. It is separate from an income tax, which applies to wages, interest and dividends, among other sources. One often overlooked issue with a wealth tax is the damaging effect on financial privacy. The income tax already has the IRS probing into nooks and crannies i…

All transactions are already supposed to be reported so I'm not sure in what way you wouldn't be able to acquire the exact same information using the current regulatory requirements, so I'm not too keen on your stance here.

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#196
I tend to vote Republican, I don't oppose a more progressive tax. So long as the heavier taxes stay safely above middle class, I think it's a fair idea.

To get broad support, crafty lefties need only emphasize how much the taxes will affect Hollywood blowhards. That'll make the whole thing much more palatable to those on the right side of the aisle.

Re: Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: poll

#198
Here’s where things get tricky. The ultra wealthy have most of their wealth tied up in stocks/bonds.

Bill Gates and Bezos are the worlds richest because they have >1% ownership in their founding companies.

The rich get richer because the stock market and their companies are doing well. They own means of production.

Capital gains tax rate means if you hold stock for more than an year and sell it, you get taxed a bit less. There’s an incentive for longer term ownership.

Like property taxes, what if you taxed holding stock? Then that’s unfair as AMT crap. Holding stock is fake money. It could disappear in thin air when market crashes. Gains are only realized when you sell.

But when you sell, you still pay income tax.

So if a billionaire has ownership in his founding company but draws I’m all for higher tax percentages at higher incomes but all of it gets very murky.

America was built on the foundations of if you work hard and build something great and have a pie of ownership, you get to reap the rewards.

Removing this ^ incentive causes all sorts of issues in other parts.

I would love estate tax to have a higher tax rate. Transferring property to kids shouldn’t be cheap since they didn’t do the hard work.

I would also love taxes to be 0 below a certain income bracket.

I would also love some form of aid when unemployed/ on the streets. Some sort of buffer. Better affordable healthcare. Less middleman. More transparency.

A lot of this problems aren’t money related but more about refactoring the current way of things and making more efficient use of what’s currently already there.

My 2 cents. Would love to debate.

Post reply on HN