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

We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 580 posts

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#41

Post by [deleted] »

Jonnax wrote: post #27
bko wrote: post #2

> Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden.... We believe that disclosing the identities of billionaires who paid little to no taxes in years their fortunes grew by billions of dollars will help readers understand t…

Yes. It is. They are billionaires hiding their wealth. Leeches on society. The more money you have, the less right to privacy you have. That's my opinion. Your opinion seems to be that you accept that you're a peasant and you wish to lick their boots.

[deleted]

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#42

Post by toomuchtodo »

sokoloff wrote: post #35
xutopia wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing my STI results are shared with my sexual partners and their partners too. It doesn't bother me one bit.

By you and them? Laudable and sensible. By the government? What business is it of the government to even know who my sexual partner(s) is/are (especially for a negative test result)?

Communicable disease prevention. HIV infections are typically reported to the government, for example, and does not require patient consent (nor does such data sharing incur a HIPPA violation).

> All 50 states require both physicians and laboratories to report to local or state health departments the names of persons newly diagnosed with Centers for Disease Control-defined AIDS [1]. However, because AIDS cases represent onset of the disease caused by HIV, HIV data is necessary to monitor the epidemic.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-...

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#43

Post by naasking »

mlac wrote: post #24

I would really just like a flat tax. No loopholes or deductions. Very simple. It should not take a masters degree to understand the tax code. I recognize this is one of the main ways Policy is implemented (incentives can drive certain behavior), but we’ve got hundreds of years of complexity going on and I wouldn’t mind simplifying this. I don’t know where to start though.

Flat tax is too regressive. What seems justified is a basic S-curve indexed by income, and where the left hand side dips below zero so those below a certain line effectively get a negative income tax to maintain a certain standard of living.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#44

Post by zepto »

eplanit wrote: post #34

Large grain of salt required. But, at least they were honest enough to state (in the middle of the article), that the information on which this is based is suspect: "We do not know the identity of our source. We did not solicit the information they sent us. The source says they were motivated by our previous coverage of issues surrounding the IRS and tax enforcement, but we do not know for certain that is true. We ha…

> we do not know for certain that is true. We have considered the possibility that information we have received could have come from a state actor hostile to American interests

If they have no way to verify or at least assure themselves that it isn’t this, then they have no business publishing it.

Also, many of their statements are just lies in that context:

E.g. We are disclosing the tax details of the richest Americans …

Is a lie.

“We are disclosing what an unknown source who could be a hostile foreign agent has told us are the tax details of the richest Americans.”

Is true.

It will be interesting to see whose secrets are included and whose are not. For example if they have Bloomberg’s details, do they have Trumps?

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#45

Post by dataviz1000 »

naasking wrote: post #43
mlac wrote: post #24

I would really just like a flat tax. No loopholes or deductions. Very simple. It should not take a masters degree to understand the tax code. I recognize this is one of the main ways Policy is implemented (incentives can drive certain behavior), but we’ve got hundreds of years of complexity going on and I wouldn’t mind simplifying this. I don’t know where to start though.

Flat tax is too regressive. What seems justified is a basic S-curve indexed by income, and where the left hand side dips below zero so those below a certain line effectively get a negative income tax to maintain a certain standard of living.

Agreed. Flat tax and sales tax are both regressive and both hurt the population the economy needs most to spend on consumption to be viable with circulation.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#46

Post by gmadsen »

anovikov wrote: post #39
lmilcin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously haven't been to Finland. In Scandinavia, the approach to other person earning couple of times more than you could be summarized by "good for you".

But earning couple of times less lol? ) I don't think anyone at all wants live in a place where most people earn a lot less than themselves.

maybe in extremes. like 100:1, but 2:1, 3:1 doesn't seem that bad... honestly better for social cohesion

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#47

Post by throwaway9980 »

deeblering4 wrote: post #5
bko wrote: post #2

> Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden.... We believe that disclosing the identities of billionaires who paid little to no taxes in years their fortunes grew by billions of dollars will help readers understand t…

And the .001 consistently encroach on our political policies for private benefit. I see these tax loopholes as bugs/vulnerabilities in the tax code. And just like in software, bad actors have an incentive to keep the bugs in place. Shedding light on them is a first step towards greater awareness and eventual fixes.

The bad actors with the most incentive to keep the bugs in place are the same people that put the bugs into the system: lawmakers. They might occasionally close a bug, but they are not interested in preventing them being introduced. They sell these bugs/vulnerabilities. That's the business they are in.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#48

Post by Cthulhu_ »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #37
bwestergard wrote: post #7

In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining.

Interesting. It seems to work for Finland. In some countries it would probably make you a kidnapping target.

You become a kidnapping target by being rich, whether that's a matter of public record or just someone cruising the wealthier neighbourhoods is arbitrary.

I mean over here you can't look up who makes how much, but the rough value of houses and neighbourhoods, which is used to determine property taxes, is public record.

I'm sure there's some rich people / families living in otherwise underwhelming houses, but they're generally a minority.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#49

Post by itsoktocry »

eplanit wrote: post #34

Large grain of salt required. But, at least they were honest enough to state (in the middle of the article), that the information on which this is based is suspect: "We do not know the identity of our source. We did not solicit the information they sent us. The source says they were motivated by our previous coverage of issues surrounding the IRS and tax enforcement, but we do not know for certain that is true. We ha…

>Large grain of salt required.

What exactly do I need to "take" with a large grain of salt? Have you been in seclusion for the past 20 years? I'm pretty sure we're at the point where the burden of proof is on the billionaires to demonstrate they aren't funnelling away their money, not vice versa.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#50

Post by an_opabinia »

mlac wrote: post #24

I would really just like a flat tax. No loopholes or deductions. Very simple. It should not take a masters degree to understand the tax code. I recognize this is one of the main ways Policy is implemented (incentives can drive certain behavior), but we’ve got hundreds of years of complexity going on and I wouldn’t mind simplifying this. I don’t know where to start though.

Economically, you sort of live in a flat tax. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/incom...)

I know that's not what you mean. But if you simply filed a 1040EZ, then paid a 20% penalty when the IRS sends you a letter saying pay the rest of what you owe, expect to pay... 28 percentage points effective instead of 26.

This is to say that tax complexity is a red herring. You can already live in an almost zero-complexity tax obligation personally, as a wage earner, above and beyond what is officially prescribed. It's not really what it's about. It's probably not about saving money either.

Post reply on HN