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

51–60 of 580 posts

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

#51

Post by dougmwne »

zepto wrote: post #44
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 Ameri…

They also state:

"We have gone to considerable lengths to confirm that the information sent to us is accurate. We compared the tax data in our possession to other sources of the same information wherever we could find them, some of which were public (a tax return for a candidate for national office), others of which were private. In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources."

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

#52

Post by myWindoonn »

zepto wrote: post #44
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 Ameri…

From the article:

> Provenance is not essential; accuracy is. We have gone to considerable lengths to confirm that the information sent to us is accurate. We compared the tax data in our possession to other sources of the same information wherever we could find them, some of which were public (a tax return for a candidate for national office), others of which were private. In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources.

They did assure themselves by verifying any detail that they could corroborate, it seems.

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

#54

Post by gota »

failwhaleshark wrote: post #21
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.

That makes the lives of gold-diggers easier too. If it were opt-in that would be fine, otherwise it's an invasion of privacy of most people who aren't rich. It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. Fight wealth…

I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information.

To your points:

> gold-diggers

I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their money... this is a non-issue. Happy to debate it further, but it seems so silly and self-apparent that we shouldn't care at all about it

> Invasion of privacy

Arguably, but as long as only a minimum amount of whats is public, with only the lump-sums published, I think its fine in context.

> It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly.

I think these are very different things, the difference is not just of severity. They are different classes of things. Financial information relates to money, which only makes sense in a society (money is for trade). A disease's effects are personal. When they aren't, you are obligated to disclose them and/or to comply to other rules (for example, to quarantine).

> Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them.

I think the experience where this has been applied is precisely the opposite - the rich are the ones affected the most. And - if your justice can be bought, the problem has less to do with the knowledge that the other can't find back and more to do with the legal system in the first place.

> Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it.

Can't argue with that, even if I wanted to, in fewer than 15 pages. Complex stuff!

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

#55

Post by eplanit »

itsoktocry wrote: post #49
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.

Evidence isn't necessary for one who is already convinced.

However, there is a lot that says that the 1% actually pay the vast majority of taxes collected:

https://www.publishedreporter.com/2021/04/05/op-ed-top-1-inc...

https://howmuch.net/articles/high-income-americans-pay-major...

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bott...

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

#57

Post by madaxe_again »

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.

I don’t know that flat tax is necessary - progressive taxation is a sane policy, as the marginal utility of money goes down the more of it you have, and therefore a larger tax burden is more easily borne - however addressing the gap between how asset and employment income are taxed is critical to combatting gross wealth asymmetry.

I write this as a member of the asset-owning class. I wasn’t always - I worked in the U.K., with my income automatically taxed via PAYE (Pay As You Earn), and paid between 20 and 45% effective tax rates on my earnings.

Now, my income is rentals and investments, and my effective tax rate is nearer 5%, on a much larger income than I ever had from employment. I’ve not done anything special or weird, I’ve just paid capital gains and written down the allowable expenses. It would not be hard to pay no tax, just by restructuring my finances a little, but it doesn’t sit well with me as it is.

Honestly, it’s nonsensical. At the very least asset income should be taxed at the same rates as labour income - but it should probably be taxed at a higher rate, as penalising productive labour and rewarding rent-seeking is ultimately contrary to the interests of everyone.

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

#58

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

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.

> The more money you have, the less right to privacy you have.

I'd change this to: The more power you have, the less right to privacy you have.

Money is just one form of power. If there was a way to give up the "power" that money provides (without giving up their money) then I'd say they can regain their right to privacy. Transparency is needed for the people to keep those with power accountable (in a free society and/or without violence).

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

#59

Post by runjake »

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…

OTOH, ProPublica reached out to Bezos, Musk, etc with this info and they essentially had no comment.

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

#60

Post by pmoriarty »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The solution to this is to eliminate wealth disparity.
Post reply on HN