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

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

#41

Post by jacknews » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

Clewza313 wrote: post #31

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.

I agree, there should be more scrutiny and requirements to operate as a charitable foundation.

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

#42

Post by DaedPsyker » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

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…

I don't see how it would, here is the full text concerning religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Part 2 would be the key aspect not part one. The question would be whether the free exercise is inhibited by tax on institutions or whether religion is intangible and separate from institutions and thus still free practice is available. I'm not sure how it would lean but a somewhat similar concept is tax on guns which is legal, though the wording is different.

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

#43

Post by sneak » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

readams wrote: post #39

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…

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

"respect" here means "on the matter of" (eg "in respect to the matter of") not "favored over another".

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

#44

Post by aj3 » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:43 AM UTC

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…

> 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".

Arguably, that just means you can't pass laws that are directed towards / against religion. Not that religion is above the law. See Lemon Test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test

According to this interpretation, church taxes (like the ones still present in some European countries) are unlawful, as is denying churches ability to gather their own donations. But churches still should pay same taxes that apply to other NGOs.

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

#45

Post by bryanrasmussen » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

DaedPsyker wrote: post #42

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…

I don't see how it would, here is the full text concerning religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Part 2 would be the key aspect not part one. The question would be whether the free exercise is inhibited by tax on institutions or whether religion is intangible and separate from institutions and thus still free practice is available. I'…

I think an argument would be if a church did not pay its tax what would happen? If the church would be closed that would be in violation of the amendment.

However I thought that it is not just that religions are not taxed, but rather that non-profits are not taxed and religions are just a special type of non-profit.

on edit: wrote it's instead of its.

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

#46

Post by Nursie » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #43

readams wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"respect" here means "on the matter of" (eg "in respect to the matter of") not "favored over another".

Actually it appears that that phrase is to do with making any particular religious organisation established like the Church of England, which is definitely a favoured status.

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

#47

Post by sneak » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:47 AM UTC

aj3 wrote: post #44

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…

> 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". Arguably, that just means you can't pass laws that are directed towards / against religion. Not that religion is above the law. See Lemon Test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon…

It's not that religious establishments are above the law, it's that congress (the source of laws) does not have the authority to make any laws that apply to religious establishments.

It's a subtle difference. Churchgoers don't get a free pass to break the law. The establishment simply is immune to regulation of any kind attempted to be placed upon the organization itself by congress.

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

#48

Post by throwawayzRUU6f » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:47 AM UTC

cameronh90 wrote: post #12

danpalmer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sales taxes aren't a particularly balanced way of taxation. Someone living paycheck to paycheck essentially spends all of their income, which means that they pay the full amount of sales tax possible for someone with that income. Compared to someone saving or investing who doesn't pay as much tax as they could. A little simplified because sales taxes typically don't apply to things like rent, but the point still stan…

Sales taxes aren't the most balanced, but they are very easy to enforce and don't distort the economy very much. Standard wealth taxes are easy to avoid and have weird effects - but land value tax would probably be great. Unfortunately, people tend to vote against it.

Wealth tax, implemented properly without obvious loopholes (1) would be incredibly popular, as long as it shifts taxation from income to wealth. However, wealth taxes are unpopular when they're introduced as an additional tax burden.

It's a bit similar to how the car industry introduced gimped, ugly, overpriced electric vehicles to "prove" the public doesn't want them. The same principle - badly thought out wealth taxes in return for nothing - just to prove the public dislikes them. Malicious compliance on political level. Nothing unites mainstream political parties as much as the dislike for taxing wealth.

(1) proposals like radical markets wealth tax create an uncheatable system

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

#49

Post by chalst » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:48 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #23

As the saying goes, "Harvard/Yale are hedge funds with universities attached". https://thehustle.co/yale-harvard-crypto-investment-paradigm...

Economically, they are not normal universities: equally though, hedge funds are usually not charities.

It's a nice quip - I've quoted it myself - but sometimes quips can mean you don't dig a little deeper.

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

#50

Post by bildung » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:48 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #11

ivalm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very backwards. As percentage of income poor people pay more than rich. If you want to tax über wealthy just tax wealth directly (let’s say 3% on all US citizens and residents on all things values above $10mil).

Wealth taxes basically guarantee that within a decade most wealth will be held in hard-to-value assets. It then becomes an arms race between lawyers and accountants. Given history, adding complexity to the tax system will benefit the rich at the expense of e.g. those of us with cash and stock and real estate. It would be a levy on the middle class.

Wealth taxes basically guarantee that within a decade most wealth will be held in hard-to-value assets.

Why isn't this a problem in countries that already tax wealth, like France or Norway?