Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#41

Post by president »

lend000 wrote: post #32

If I am understanding this correctly, there is no money flowing to rich Americans, but they will have additional opportunities to deduct losses on their 2020 taxes (basically paying less in taxes after a major stock market rout) that would normally need to be spread over future tax returns indefinitely. However, this will only occur if they took losses, so it is really a discount of ~35% on negative income. This woul…

Something really needs to be done about downvote brigading on HN. At least people should be required to provide a reason for the downvote.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#43

Post by cultus »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #33
nordsieck wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where have you heard that landlords are forgiving rent? I assume he's confusing it with evictions being put on hold. > You still owe all of that rent. Indeed.

> You still owe all of that rent. Without interest?

Worse, with late fees. You can still get evicted legally as well, it's just that they can't remove you.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#44

Post by jimbob45 »

president wrote: post #41
lend000 wrote: post #32

If I am understanding this correctly, there is no money flowing to rich Americans, but they will have additional opportunities to deduct losses on their 2020 taxes (basically paying less in taxes after a major stock market rout) that would normally need to be spread over future tax returns indefinitely. However, this will only occur if they took losses, so it is really a discount of ~35% on negative income. This woul…

Something really needs to be done about downvote brigading on HN. At least people should be required to provide a reason for the downvote.

I've wondered if a five-a-day downvote limit would benefit HN.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#45

Post by mancerayder »

president wrote: post #41
lend000 wrote: post #32

If I am understanding this correctly, there is no money flowing to rich Americans, but they will have additional opportunities to deduct losses on their 2020 taxes (basically paying less in taxes after a major stock market rout) that would normally need to be spread over future tax returns indefinitely. However, this will only occur if they took losses, so it is really a discount of ~35% on negative income. This woul…

Something really needs to be done about downvote brigading on HN. At least people should be required to provide a reason for the downvote.

I agree that downvoting should be mainly for either a mean post, a post that adds nothing ("me too" or "lol"), or a poor argument like an ad hominem or incorrect premises. Instead it's used for feelings, as if we could collectively vote on reality. Maybe dang/mods could put some ever-present reminder someplace in the comment 'reply' page.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#46

Post by anm89 »

Edit for definitional clarity: My use of the term socialism here is exactly equivalent here to the term "systems that enable wealth redistribution through legislation" no more, no less. Im not commenting on anything like the ownership of the means of production in society or anything like that.

It seems like the whole world is chomping at the bit to enact more socialism but do you think it's homeless people and cashiers that are defining the rules of the system and legislation? Of course not, it's lawyers and politicians. So are you really naive enough to believe that they write perfectly fair legislation that doesn't favor their interests at all?

Friedrich Hayek nailed this on the head almost 100 years ago. The problem with socialism isn't that its not an admirable goal, it's that even if you want it, by nature you aren't going to get the version of it that you wanted, you are going to get the version of it the a bunch of politically connected insiders design and while they may not be totally self serving, they are usually going to figure out how to be on the winning end of the game.

Crass said it well: "But no one ever changed the church by pulling down a steeple

And you'll never change the system by bombing number ten

Systems just aren't made of bricks they're mostly made of people"

The systems you get are the ones the people who design them make. Thinking otherwise is foolish. The people who should be the most scared of redistribution systems like this are the ones who want to look out for the interests of the little guys.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#47

Post by SilasX »

president wrote: post #41
lend000 wrote: post #32

If I am understanding this correctly, there is no money flowing to rich Americans, but they will have additional opportunities to deduct losses on their 2020 taxes (basically paying less in taxes after a major stock market rout) that would normally need to be spread over future tax returns indefinitely. However, this will only occur if they took losses, so it is really a discount of ~35% on negative income. This woul…

Something really needs to be done about downvote brigading on HN. At least people should be required to provide a reason for the downvote.

That’s not scalable. But maybe a 1/N probability of being required to do so, for reasonable N.

(Edit: something like slashdots categories could work but you’d need some incentive to be truthful rather than trust them to separate a “troll” from a “disagree”.)

Plus, if anything, I’d say it’s more common for there to be a bias against downvoting relative to upvoting.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#48

Post by bawana »

WalterBright wrote: post #34
noahtallen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t seem hard to argue that purchasing stocks or expensive real estate is not as beneficial for the economy as thousands of people spending the same amount in their local economies.

> It doesn’t seem hard to argue I agree, but it doesn't make any sense. Investing is literally putting money to work. Storing it in a mattress is not putting it to work. For example, what happens to the money when people buy real estate? The seller of that real estate gets the money. They don't hoard it, they also spend/invest it. What happens to the money you put in your bank account? The bank loans it out to people…

Unfortunately, when wealthy people get money they do not spend it on goods and services that employ people and drive the economY. Rather, the invest it in the financial vehicle with the highest ROI. Giving money to the rich does not trickle down to people. It goes into a holding pattern of financial engineering. That maybe why there has not been any inflation with all the quantitative easing that has been going on these past 2 decades. Instead of having more money chasing the same amount of goods and services (which would happen if all that QE hit the real economy) there is more money chasing more financial products. That is why the value of financial products(stocks,etc) has been skyrocketing for a decade.

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#49

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

verbify wrote: post #31
fortran77 wrote: post #12

Landlords who took big losses from tenants who didn't or couldn't pay their rent and suffered a loss will be able to deduct more of their loss from their personal income tax.

The reason why you get better yields from being a landlord or investing in shares than from keeping it in the bank is because you also accept risk. These people accepted the risk, and their reward during normal times is a better yield. By bailing them out (and specifically only the ones who also get income tax)

The risk they accept usually means that they might have to find new tenants or replace stuff. Your tenant won't pay what they agreed to? Now you have to find a new tenant.

But right now we want them to not kick out people who can't pay. We want them to provide free housing to tenants who need it. Those are the landlords we want to bail out. Asking them to just take that as a loss is shitty.

(I assume that the landlords who don't forgive rent don't get to claim this loss on their taxes.)

Re: Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7M

#50

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

frenchman99 wrote: post #17
darawk wrote: post #16

This is a pretty reasonable thing to suspend at a time when landlords are essentially forgiving huge amounts of rent. It's super reasonable that they be able to deduct those losses on their taxes in an unlimited fashion.

Only if they don't request to be paid back later for said rent. Otherwise, that's just giving rich people free money.

If they get it later, what's the loss they get to claim on their taxes?
Post reply on HN