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

91–100 of 112 posts

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

#91

Post by joking »

clairity wrote: post #74
lend000 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe if you elect to be a pass-through LLC (eligible for this rule change), you cannot pay yourself a salary in the same way as if you were a non pass-through LLC or S-Corp. It isn't as easy to cheat the system as most people think, but there seem to be more opportunities to finagle things the more assets you own. The fundamental way our tax code is broken is not loopholes, but the actual publicly known tax brac…

yes, please. sign me up for all of the above. let's get a fairer, more dynamic economy that discouraging rent-seeking and encourages risk-taking and innovation. wealth concentration is a symptom of a broken, plutocratic system, not a capitalistic one.

I would love that, how rent seekers leech the system is not fair.

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

#92

Post by einpoklum »

clairity wrote: post #74
lend000 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe if you elect to be a pass-through LLC (eligible for this rule change), you cannot pay yourself a salary in the same way as if you were a non pass-through LLC or S-Corp. It isn't as easy to cheat the system as most people think, but there seem to be more opportunities to finagle things the more assets you own. The fundamental way our tax code is broken is not loopholes, but the actual publicly known tax brac…

yes, please. sign me up for all of the above. let's get a fairer, more dynamic economy that discouraging rent-seeking and encourages risk-taking and innovation. wealth concentration is a symptom of a broken, plutocratic system, not a capitalistic one.

Concentration of wealth characterizes all Capitalist economies - limited concentration as a pre-condition, and an increasing degree of concentration as an ongoing phenomenon and consequence.

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

#93

Post by threatofrain »

dang wrote: post #75
mnm1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit is about three comments every couple of hours or so. Downvotes on the other hand, are limitless. That should not change while there is a limit on comments. Voting is really the only major way to interact with this site. Three comments every few hours leave no room for actual discussion.

That's because your account is rate-limited. We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars. We're happy to take the rate limit off (and often do) when people give us reason to believe that they'll use the site as intended in the future. Emailing hn@ycombinator.com is the best way to do that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que…

What notifications do you see when your account has been restricted?

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

#94

Post by refurb »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #90
refurb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone pays a million less in taxes then someone gave them a million dollars back. so yes, you are giving them something. So when I pay 35% tax and keep 65% of what remains, did the gov't give me that 65%?

Of course not. That's a silly argument also. But if they reduce your taxes for some special reason, like you live in a state that votes a certain way or votes a certain way, then they are giving you the tax money back.

It's not a silly argument.

There is nothing special about current tax rates that say any reduction in taxes is "giving people money". In reality, you're "just taking less money from them".

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

#95

Post by einpoklum »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #9
mywittyname wrote: post #3

>because of additional language that applies the policy retroactively “so losses in 2018 and 2019 can be ‘carried back’ against the past five years.” Damn, must be nice.

Surely this is what I’m paying taxes for. Could go to healthcare for all, fixing my roads and access to education, creating a strong resilient nation for all of us. But this is so much better.

Don't forget a lot of your federal taxes go to financing overseas wars and other military interventions. Some of it also goes to prop up oppressive regimes; and lets not forget funding Al-Qaeda-associated Islamist fundamentalist militias.

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

#96

Post by fortran77 »

briandear wrote: post #77
smcl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems they also got a reward during the tough times

It’s one thing to make a profit or a loss, it’s another thing when a government forces you to take a loss to subsidize someone else. If there was a risk that you’d be forced by the government to take huge losses then that risk should be priced into the rent — which means future rents will have to be much higher to accommodate the increased risk. Imagine if a grocery store were required to give free food to everyone a…

> which means future rents will have to be much higher to accommodate the increased risk

Right! And that, too, is illegal under rent control in many places (NY and California).

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

#97

Post by einpoklum »

aianus wrote: post #55
bawana wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Giving money to the rich does not trickle down to people. All of my well-paying tech jobs have been funded by VC money from rich people and/or IPO money from rich people. Same goes (indirectly and partially) for all the people who have been selling me goods and services over those same years.

Yeah, paying a few programmers high salaries doesn't quite count as trickling down. Let's say it's extremely-limited trickle down.

> Same goes ... for all the people who have been selling me goods and services over those same years.

No, it doesn't. Unless you only buy services from VC-financed startups?

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

#98

Post by einpoklum »

anm89 wrote: post #88
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any of these statements apply in particular to socialism? Seems to me you could find/replace "socialism" here with any political system and make the same argument.

A more hands off political system is less manipulatable. The more complicated systems that are created, the more there is to gamify. I'm advocating for more limited government. A simple clear rule set is much harder to gamify. This is an equalizer, not the reverse in my opinion.

You're not advocating for more limited government. Your intended government enforces private ownership of the means of production, with police, courts, and a military when necessary.

You're only advocating for a different representation of class interests in the state, i.e. it would do most of what capital is interested in, but little or none of what labor is interested in. Not that a more interventionist state is pro-labor - it's just somewhat less unbalanced.

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

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet »

einpoklum wrote: post #98
anm89 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more hands off political system is less manipulatable. The more complicated systems that are created, the more there is to gamify. I'm advocating for more limited government. A simple clear rule set is much harder to gamify. This is an equalizer, not the reverse in my opinion.

You're not advocating for more limited government. Your intended government enforces private ownership of the means of production, with police, courts, and a military when necessary. You're only advocating for a different representation of class interests in the state, i.e. it would do most of what capital is interested in, but little or none of what labor is interested in. Not that a more interventionist state is pr…

You're telling him what his position is?!? Unless you can demonstrate your opinion of his position from his comments, you're putting words in his mouth, which is very much a jerk move.

To me, it also looks like you're putting words in his mouth that are very much not his position...

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

#100

Post by dsfyu404ed »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #72
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just make it cost karma. Anyone that down-votes too much would wind up at the threshold for down-voting and be rate limited by their ability to make up-voted comments. It would also render ineffective the strategy of having a bunch of accounts with enough karma to downvote and using those accounts all at once to make comments you don't like dead (the presence of corporate or state controlled accounts employing thi…

The way to game that is to just upvote random comments that you don't care about in stories that you don't care about, just to have made enough upvotes to enable you to downvote again.

I meant have comments that get upvoted, not upvote other comments.
Post reply on HN