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

What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

brookings.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#151

Post by vmception »

Ekaros wrote: post #137
vmception wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Forbes rich list has some criteria such as from their own revenue or share prices. Basically private market generated wealth. There are exceptions and the line gets blurred really quickly, but thats their stated goal.

Pretty simple with public companies. With private companies and current market it really does get messy. I'm thinking about Valve and how much higher it would be priced on public market compared to private... And that can't be only case. So the private market is quite dark place...

Yes, and most people aren't actually trying to be on the rich list. When I was in Monaco people were saying leave the bragging to the Americans. There is no transparency in the markets, thats also a distinctly American half-goal.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#152

Post by andrepd »

lapinot wrote: post #144
eloff wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the U…

> This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique"…

>I guess you must know better than Picketty

>(he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said).

Well true, he doesn't say exactly what you said, because he doesn't anything like what you're saying. Taxing wealth above the relatively low ceiling of 1M USD at 100% would be ridiculous. He is, though, in favour of a progressive tax system that, crucially, reduces inequality below “tolerable” levels, where an “intolerable level” is a level which results in imbalances of power which undermine or destroy democratic rule and oppress those without wealth.

So his practicable suggestion is a global coordinated effort to tax wealth and reduce inequality, which his utopian suggestion is a trans-national socialist economy with true democratic control over the economy.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#153

Post by alasdair_ »

watertom wrote: post #125
eloff wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's factually incorrect. It's easy to make a list of rich people specifically saying tax the rich more. Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. I'd rather the focus be on compliance. Close the loopholes and catch the tax evaders. Wealth taxes, if you look at examples elsewhere both present and historically, are hard to do well. I worry the…

The tax code is lopsided in favor of the rich, it's not about paying a fair share, it's about the burden of the taxes. The burden of taxes on the non-rich is significantly greater than it is on the rich. If I make $400K and I only need $75K to live, the burden of my taxes is negligible. If however I make $80K and I need $75K to live, taxes are an unimaginable burden. We fix the problem by evening out the burden, forg…

> Then end capital gains tax, all income is taxed as earned income.

Wealthy people can keep their money growing inside a corporation essentially forever. It never becomes “income”; instead they just borrow against the assets at exceedingly low rates of interest as well as classifying personal consumption items (like a private jet) as a corporate expense.

It’s possible to keep doing this until death, or even longer.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#154

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

medvezhenok wrote: post #103
eloff wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's factually incorrect. It's easy to make a list of rich people specifically saying tax the rich more. Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. I'd rather the focus be on compliance. Close the loopholes and catch the tax evaders. Wealth taxes, if you look at examples elsewhere both present and historically, are hard to do well. I worry the…

I think we're missing the forest for the trees by focusing on exactly what the tax rates are and how much is "fair". Money at the top levels is not at all like money for the rest of us. For a middle class citizen, money is about consumption and freedom to do what you want (with enough of it). At the top end of the distribution, money is no longer about consumption or freedom (since you can never realistically consume…

I’ve always theorised that distribution of wealth would cause inflation directly or indirectly (e.g price hikes out of line with inflation).

Are there any credible studies on what would happen?

What about if you capped everyone’s net worth at 10m? Would that impact on the economy directly (e.g destroying money)?

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#155

Post by refurb »

watertom wrote: post #125
eloff wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's factually incorrect. It's easy to make a list of rich people specifically saying tax the rich more. Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. I'd rather the focus be on compliance. Close the loopholes and catch the tax evaders. Wealth taxes, if you look at examples elsewhere both present and historically, are hard to do well. I worry the…

The tax code is lopsided in favor of the rich, it's not about paying a fair share, it's about the burden of the taxes. The burden of taxes on the non-rich is significantly greater than it is on the rich. If I make $400K and I only need $75K to live, the burden of my taxes is negligible. If however I make $80K and I need $75K to live, taxes are an unimaginable burden. We fix the problem by evening out the burden, forg…

You do realize that the percentage of all taxes paid by the top 1% has only increased, not decreased over time?

If you include transfer like EITC, the US tax code is highly progressive and the tax burden on low income earners has only gotten less (e.g. Trump’s doubling of the standard deduction).

I would argue your plan to “fix” the tax code is already flawed if the basis of your changes is wrong.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#156

Post by eloff »

lapinot wrote: post #148
lapinot wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique"…

forgot to answer about jobs: Jobs don't need to be "created". Either there's stuff to do for people to live correctly or there isn't. If there is, try to find people who'd like to do it. If nobody wants, either people don't really need it, or it's a chore and organize it fairly and locally (division of labour makes no sense for non-qualified chores, it's just a byproduct of inquality: i'm not taking out my neighboors…

That's pretty clueless about how jobs are created in the economy.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#157

Post by refurb »

alistairSH wrote: post #77
javert wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which raises a subsequent question: Why does the middle class clamor to raise taxes on the rich, which won't appreciably benefit themselves, when they could instead push to lower taxes on themselves, which will benefit themselves? Maybe different in Europe, but in the USA tax increases do not find their way back to benefits for the public. I mean unless by "public" you mean the next country we want to "liberate" and…

Anecdotal... my peers (upper middle-class in the US) generally realize the taxes they pay fund all the stuff we rely upon to stay upper middle-class. Good public schools, roads, etc. We just want the rich to pay their fair share too. Or, if you're a jaded cynic, the rich are mostly just greedy sociopaths. They want to minimize their own tax burden and give zero fucks about the betterment of society. They got theirs,…

Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes. Maybe $5,000 per year.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#159

Post by slashdev »

lapinot wrote: post #144
eloff wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the U…

> This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique"…

> Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said

Yes, he didn't say anything remotely like you said. It's disingenuous to cite Picketty as if he would support your position.

> has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal.

Because the difference in taxation is minimal. I used to live in Panama, I've personally meet people who fled tax rates in their home country. The low taxes was also my favorite thing about living in Panama. Personal anecdotes aside, what you're proposing is drastic enough that the emigration won't be minimal, it will be a mass exodus of the wealthy - you know the people paying for 40% of the services you benefit from.

> You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point.

I don't know where to start with that without violating site guidelines and being uncivil to your intellect. Actually are you trolling me? I have trouble believing you could be serious right now.

There's a lot of bigger reasons communism failed. Your proposal would fail for much the same reasons. This comment of yours is so ignorant of history it is mind boggling.

Re: What lies beneath: Evidence from leaked account data on offshore banking use

#160

Post by AnimalMuppet »

lapinot wrote: post #144
eloff wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the U…

> This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique"…

Things went bad in Soviet Russia because liberals virtually control the world? Baloney. Liberals controlling the non-communist world didn't make Soviet central planning less able than capitalism to deliver goods. It didn't make Soviet workers less motivated than capitalist workers.
Post reply on HN