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

71–80 of 119 posts

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

#71

Post by sneak »

aj3 wrote: post #56
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.

> congress (the source of laws) does not have the authority to make any laws that apply to religious establishments It's not obvious that this is what was meant by 1st amendment. Other interpretation is that congress simply can't make laws that apply exclusively to religious establishments. EDIT: I must add that the interpretation you mentioned is undoubtedly the "canonical" one in public's mind, so the situation is…

Quite the opposite. I think the layperson view is to read "respect" as in "Congress is not allowed to make laws favoring one religion over another".

This interpretation would be compatible with taxing churches (as long as they are all taxed equally).

It was certainly my view before I studied the topic.

It turns out that congress is not allowed to legislate religious establishments at all.

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

#72

Post by yellowapple »

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…

> except landlords have to pass those expenses into rental prices if they wish to be in the green.

Except they can't, because (barring artificial price ceilings like rent control) they're almost certainly already charging the optimal rent for maximum profit; if they could actually charge higher without losing money as a result, they already would have, property tax or no.

The actual reason property tax increases rental prices is because it penalizes development, meaning developers are less likely to build denser housing, meaning less housing supply, meaning higher housing prices. That is what is happening when landlords hike up prices in response to property tax increases; they are responding to the shifting intersection of supply and demand.

Replacing property tax (and every other tax, for that matter, but that's a good starting point) with a land value tax would alleviate this problem, since it inverts the penalties - namely, by penalizing those who don't develop, meaning developers are more likely to build denser housing, meaning more housing supply, meaning lower housing prices. In this case, landlords are locked in; they still have to respond to the shifting intersection of supply and demand in order to maximize profit, and in this case that intersection results in a lower optimal price point. Literally zero opportunity to price LVT into apartment rentals this way; any attempt to do so results in the landlord losing profit.

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

#73

Post by notsureaboutpg »

kwdc wrote: post #24

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

Catholic church does far far far more charity work than Harvard. Catholic schools were one of the most affordable private schools in the US. Their shelters, charities, hospitals, and schools were a huge boon to the lower and middle classes

I am not Catholic but many disregard the evidence that religious people are more charitable than non religious people and thus the govt sensibly incentivizes people to be religious for the sake of society.

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

#74

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bildung wrote: post #50
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

The literature I’ve seen shows it is [1]. Anecdotally, France’s wealthy have more illiquid holdings and bespoke financial exposures than their American counterparts.(Counterfactual: There are many jurisdictions with wealth taxes [2].)

[1] https://faktasiden.com/dokumenter/SSRN-id1268381.pdf

[2] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/cpp/Sept1991/Bird.pdf

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

#76

Post by danpalmer »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #26
danpalmer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that land value tax is likely a good option. I think sales taxes are also easy to get around. At least in the UK, businesses don't pay VAT, and many large purchases are made by companies. Happens in all sorts of ways, but even things like people who do a little bit of contracting work buying expensive laptops with their "business" and bypassing 20% tax. Technically ok, but often not in the spirit of the law wh…

This VAT avoidance on laptop purchases is a drop in the sea, that's why none cares. VAT on a new construction or even a car purchase is much harder to avoid.

But VAT on buying a yacht or taxes on properties are easier to avoid.

Also the avoidance on things like laptops might be small, but they typically can't be done by the people at the bottom end of the income spectrum.

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

#77

Post by danpalmer »

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.

So the lowest income people who can't afford to buy the more repairable or higher quality items have to keep re-buying at a 66% markup, while those with more money can buy higher quality.

This exacerbates the already existing "poor tax".

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

#78

Post by bildung »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #74
bildung wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why isn't this a problem in countries that already tax wealth, like France or Norway? The literature I’ve seen shows it is [1]. Anecdotally, France’s wealthy have more illiquid holdings and bespoke financial exposures than their American counterparts.(Counterfactual: There are many jurisdictions with wealth taxes [2].) [1] https://faktasiden.com/dokumenter/SSRN-id1268381.pdf [2] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/cpp/S…

That first paper doesn't talk about about changes in asset allocation due to the ISF. It's main argument is losses due to capital flight.

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

#79

Post by extra88 »

deepstack wrote: post #8

These endowment funds seems like an excellent idea to evade taxes. And a couple of years ago Harvard endowment fund has totally stopped their financial disclosure.

What kind of disclosure are you talking about? Harvard University publishes an annual financial report [0] every year which includes information about the performance and holdings of its endowment. Compared to 2005-06, the 2019-20 report appears no less detailed.

Most people don't understand university endowments, Harvard's Endowment FAQs [1] are a short, helpful read that is mostly not specific to Harvard; "Many endowments, including Harvard’s, are structured to exist in perpetuity, meaning that the institution must continue to rely on the endowment’s earnings forever. Because of this, our endowment is not only for today’s generation, but is for all future generations of Harvard students and scholars."

[0] https://finance.harvard.edu/endowment

[1] https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/endowment/

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

#80

Post by ahD5zae7 »

krapp wrote: post #67
yosamino wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Congr…

But not paying taxes on your income is illegal "in general". So one could interpret that as "all organisations should pay taxes if they have income"...
Post reply on HN