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

61–70 of 119 posts

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

#61

Post by austincheney »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #55
austincheney wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody makes purchases. Including the wealthy charities and endowments specified in the article. Get them all in a way they cannot hide. This is the most fair approach. The moment you invent a bunch of nonsense special cases to target the rich is where they can use special cases to hide. If you want to talk about how sales taxes disadvantage the poor what are some examples? School supplies, clothes, and backpacks?…

They are low cost items, but poor people also have less money to spend so that cancels out. Here's an example: Sales tax of 10%, poor person has an income of $1000 per month and spends it all. 10%/$100 of income goes to tax. Rich person has an income of $10000 per month. They spends $5000 and save $5000. 5%/$500 of income goes to tax. That's like a reverse progressive income, arguably very disadvantageous for the poo…

I already mentioned I have once been poor myself and know how this works. Your simplified arithmetic is not a comprehensive financial scenario.

When I was poor we were dependent upon hand-me downs and school assistance programs to cover many of the essentials.

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

#62

Post by ajuc »

austincheney wrote: post #36
ajuc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wh…

I'm in Poland :)

I meant cumulatively. If you own 200 things worth 10 000 usd each you should still pay 5% for 100 of them.

> Home ownership is living.

If you really need to live in a million dollar house you should be able to pay for it. It's not living it's luxury.

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

#63

Post by austincheney »

lhoff wrote: post #17
cameronh90 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are only easy to enforce because we have a huge bureaucratic apparatus in place. Imagine all the work that goes into correctly registering all the sales and spending in companies as well as the other side that checks these reports. Sales taxes are among the most inefficient taxes in existence. I am in favor of higher taxes but taxes should be evaluated based on there influence on the market and there efficiency.…

I am not sure how sales taxes are less efficient than manually audited income taxes with itemized deductions. Sales taxes are largely automated.

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

#64

Post by yellowapple »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #14
cameronh90 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

VAT is much easier to enforce than sales taxes, and as much as I dislike VAT, one can use it to enforce sustainable living and environmental policies. Think of 66% VAT applied to all products. Suddenly, repairing and extending lifetime of existing stuff becomes economically viable.

> Think of 66% VAT applied to all products.

That's 66% more on a massive chunk of lower and middle class spending. I can think of few things more hostile to the working class than some regressive tax like VAT.

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

#65

Post by austincheney »

throwawayzRUU6f wrote: post #48
cameronh90 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

What exactly is a wealth tax, as in what asset is taxed? Is that an estate tax?

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

#66

Post by alpaca128 »

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…

That's a bit like a German health minister answering the question "why is drug consumption forbidden?" with the words "because drugs are illegal".

Yeah sure, that's technically correct, but laws can be changed. Including the constitution, with the prime example being your source, the first amendment.

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

#67

Post by krapp »

yosamino wrote: post #59
sneak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let´s say I had a religion that had a "Thou shalt sacrifice a non-believer being every Wednesday to appease Xantako the Moon God" clause. Are you arguing that my congregation should be immune from any restrictions being placed on us for worshipping our god by slowly killing everyone around us who does not share our view , because we operate outside of the law ?

The parent explicitly pointed out that religious organizations don't operate outside the law. If they did, literally every corporation and political party in the US would also establish itself as a religion.

What Congress isn't allowed to do is pass a law stating "no religious organizations in the US are allowed to practice human sacrifice." But you still wouldn't be able to appease Xanakto the Moon God because Congress is still allowed to make murder illegal in general, just not exclusively in the context of religious practice.

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

#68

Post by yellowapple »

austincheney wrote: post #30
Marazan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sales tax are a terrible, regressive, way of raising money.

Kind of like democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The issue here is fairness and ensuring the wealthy pay their share.

Except in this case quite literally every tax other than maybe sin taxes are leaps and bounds better than a sales tax. Even terrible taxes like income and payroll taxes are vastly preferable to sales tax when it comes to not disproportionately hurting low-income households. If you want to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share, a sales tax is about as counterproductive as it gets.

Tax things with inelastic supply that rich people and large corporations are more likely to hoard. Land in particular is about ideal for this.

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

#69

Post by ajuc »

machiaweliczny wrote: post #53
ajuc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think that property and land taxes + VAT should be sufficient. Also some easier way to short stocks would be good for economy. The only problem is how to avoid capital outflow from country if you really decide to tax the rich? I wonder how this proposed 40% investment income tax above $1M will impact US (if it passes) EDIT: The best way to tax the rich is rising minimum wage actually (but also tricky due to global…

> The only problem is how to avoid capital outflow from country if you really decide to tax the rich?

Is it doing anything useful while it's there? This trickle-down bullshit is at this point completely debunked, right?

What about downsides of the capital being there (like lobbying politics to introduce economic policies that harm majority of citizens)?

If the balance effect of it leaving is positive (and I think there's a good chance it is) - I say good riddance :)

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

#70

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

austincheney wrote: post #61
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are low cost items, but poor people also have less money to spend so that cancels out. Here's an example: Sales tax of 10%, poor person has an income of $1000 per month and spends it all. 10%/$100 of income goes to tax. Rich person has an income of $10000 per month. They spends $5000 and save $5000. 5%/$500 of income goes to tax. That's like a reverse progressive income, arguably very disadvantageous for the poo…

I already mentioned I have once been poor myself and know how this works. Your simplified arithmetic is not a comprehensive financial scenario. When I was poor we were dependent upon hand-me downs and school assistance programs to cover many of the essentials.

How does that change anything? You're just moving the burden to the nearly-poor who can't rely on those things.

edit: don't forget that for your scheme to work we would need to increase sale tax. Unless you had zero income when being poor it would still negatively effect you.

Post reply on HN