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

So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#31

Post by Clewza313 »

jacknews wrote: post #9

"... crimp spending on student aid or faculty research, but wealthy individuals can make the same argument: Higher taxes would reduce the amount of money they can invest in tech start-ups or other economically productive ventures." Clearly this is not the same argument at all. Student aid, and academic research are not the same as funding a startup. The difference is that colleges, or large grant-making foundations p…

In theory, yes... but did you know that IKEA is owned by a charitable foundation "to promote and support innovation in the field of architectural and interior design"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_INGKA_Foundation

Said foundation had an estimated endowment of $36 billion in 2006 (undoubtedly much larger now), yet it only donated $159 million in 2017, or only 0.4% assuming the endowment had zero growth.

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#32

Post by sneak »

kwdc wrote: post #24

Catholic and other churches have a lot of money. Why not tax them?

It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part.

It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities.

You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right on the tin: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#33

Post by kgwgk »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #29
kgwgk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would pay 66% VAT on repairs as well.

Only on the added value, e.g. a new smartphone glass. Work will be relatively cheaper. One of the most reasonable proposals for UBI is to finance it through VAT. Some 15 years ago there was a party in Belgium that lobbied for UBI and they calculated that VAT should increase from 21% to 33% to finance UBI.

The work is added value. That is how VAT works.

Edit: I guess that if you're paying a salary to someone in your household staff who can repare the smartphone you only need to buy (and pay VAT on) the replacement glass. But I don't think this is what you meant. I think that you just don't understand how VAT works. If you bring your phone to a repair shop in Belgium the 21% VAT will be applied on the whole bill, parts and labour.

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#34

Post by jacobolus »

sneak wrote: post #32
kwdc wrote: post #24

Catholic and other churches have a lot of money. Why not tax them?

It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part. It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities. You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right o…

There is nothing in the constitution that says that religious organizations (or other kinds of organizations for that matter) should be tax exempt.

These rules come from the US Code § 501 (c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

> (3) [...] religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals [...]

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#35

Post by sneak »

jacobolus wrote: post #34
sneak wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part. It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities. You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right o…

There is nothing in the constitution that says that religious organizations (or other kinds of organizations for that matter) should be tax exempt. These rules come from the US Code § 501 (c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 > (3) [...] religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but…

You're right. The congress doesn't have the authority to tax (or legislate) them in the first place; not being subject to tax laws at all, they cannot be then exempted from tax liabilities under them.

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#36

Post by austincheney »

ajuc wrote: post #3
austincheney wrote: post #2

If people really wanted to tax the rich the majority of taxes would come from sales taxes and minority from property taxes. Eliminate income taxes including capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are at a laughable rate anyways. Income taxes primarily tax the upper middle class not the rich or poor who either make no employment income or an insufficient amount. Everybody buys things though. To be fair to the poor e…

> If people really wanted to tax the rich the majority of taxes would come from sales taxes and minority from property taxes Why not the other way around? If you can't sell but can hold - people will hold and rent to others. We all played monopoly and know what the endgame is, right? If you want to tax the rich simply tax the rich - let's say 5% tax on any property over 1 000 000 USD.

Home ownership is living. Property rental is a business with risks not present in just ownership and is not always profitable. Property taxes effect home owners and landlords just the same, except landlords have to pass those expenses into rental prices if they wish to be in the green.

> If you want to tax the rich simply tax the rich - let's say 5% tax on any property over 1 000 000 USD.

You must be in California where the taxes are weird. Everybody already pays much more than 5% where I live.

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#37

Post by Nursie »

sneak wrote: post #32
kwdc wrote: post #24

Catholic and other churches have a lot of money. Why not tax them?

It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part. It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities. You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right o…

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I am not a constitutional scholar, nor am I even American, but that doesn't say to me that religions can't be taxed, so long as it's applied equally across all religious organisations. If they are taxed like businesses, they are still allowed to be practised, surely? And there is no 'establishment' of an official church or religion by taxing all equally.

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#38

Post by HPsquared »

sneak wrote: post #32
kwdc wrote: post #24

Catholic and other churches have a lot of money. Why not tax them?

It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part. It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities. You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right o…

Doesn't that "no law" thing also mean "no special exemptions"?

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#39

Post by readams »

sneak wrote: post #32
kwdc wrote: post #24

Catholic and other churches have a lot of money. Why not tax them?

It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part. It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities. You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right o…

The first amendment does not require that churches be exempt from tax. Only that they be treated equally.

Re: So you want to tax the rich? OK, let's start with Harvard

#40

Post by sam_lowry_ »

kgwgk wrote: post #33
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on the added value, e.g. a new smartphone glass. Work will be relatively cheaper. One of the most reasonable proposals for UBI is to finance it through VAT. Some 15 years ago there was a party in Belgium that lobbied for UBI and they calculated that VAT should increase from 21% to 33% to finance UBI.

The work is added value. That is how VAT works. Edit: I guess that if you're paying a salary to someone in your household staff who can repare the smartphone you only need to buy (and pay VAT on) the replacement glass. But I don't think this is what you meant. I think that you just don't understand how VAT works. If you bring your phone to a repair shop in Belgium the 21% VAT will be applied on the whole bill, parts…

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=Why+is+there+no+VAT+on+salary%3F
Post reply on HN