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

81–90 of 580 posts

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

#81

Post by failwhaleshark »

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)?

We already know, and we knew even before you did. Two of them were sent to test your disclosure practices, and you failed. You're an absolutely terrible person. How dare you!? Good day to you, sir/madame. I said "Good day!"

/s

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

#82

Post by silicon2401 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #75
naasking wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many of the ultra-wealthy have little or no income. What needs to be taxed is wealth, not income.

I disagree, at least not with so simple an implementation. I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes. There should be at least a minimum threshold where wealth is completely untaxed so that people can live freely and not have to work until they die. Enough for a house, some property and land, and a retirement fund. I'd consider it more justifiable to tax someone like Bill Gates with billions of dollars and millions of acres of land, but it's just unnecessary for taxes to be absolutely inescapable.

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

#83

Post by Analemma_ »

eplanit wrote: post #55
itsoktocry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

"The top earners pay the majority of tax already!" is a smoke and mirrors argument to try and distract you, especially when they've been collecting all the income gains. Consider that if there are income gains which go exclusively to the wealthy but the tax code stays the same, by definition they will end up paying an increasing percentage of total tax revenue, even though this situation does not mean their taxes need to be decreased - precisely the opposite.

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

#84

Post by faeyanpiraat »

pmoriarty wrote: post #60
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We tried that already. It wasn’t pretty.

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

#85

Post by 411111111111111 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #62
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm sure there's some rich people / families living in otherwise underwhelming houses, but they're generally a minority. There are more than you think. Pretty much every city has a nice neighborhood where the wealthy residents live. The difference between someone worth $10mm vs someone worth $100mm is not visible from the street.

Does that difference matter when kidnapping? Its not like the 100mm person has more money readily available, as they'll likely both have the bulk invested/tied up in some way.

You can only get their fluid money which is probably quite similar in a time sensitive situation like that.

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

#86

Post by jvanderbot »

What I don't understand is: If I (a wage slave) find a football sized diamond in my back yard, I'm suddenly very "wealthy". Should I be forced to pay taxes on that find because my wealth has increased?

What if I want to keep that diamond but cannot afford to because of the taxes?

Isn't that how business owners gain wealth: By the valuation defined by others to the thing they "found". Should we force Bezos et al to sell some of their stock in their companies to pay tax? Surely a $100m+ tax burden would do that?

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

#87

Post by zhdc1 »

btilly wrote: post #69
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Per The Millionaire Next Door (see https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Amer... for the link), most wealthy are those who have a reasonable income but good financial discipline. Which means that a shocking number of millionaires live in poor neighborhoods and have modest lifestyles. Those aren't the super-wealthy, of course. But most wealthy people can't be identified by where they live.

> Those aren't the super-wealthy, of course. But most wealthy people can't be identified by where they live.

This is particularly true for intergenerational wealth. I grew up in a area with fair number of affluent households. You couldn't realize it until you became familiar the community.

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

#88

Post by dataangel »

jvanderbot wrote: post #86

What I don't understand is: If I (a wage slave) find a football sized diamond in my back yard, I'm suddenly very "wealthy". Should I be forced to pay taxes on that find because my wealth has increased? What if I want to keep that diamond but cannot afford to because of the taxes? Isn't that how business owners gain wealth: By the valuation defined by others to the thing they "found". Should we force Bezos et al to se…

You don't pay capital gains taxes until you sell the stock. The IRS only taxes you when you cash out. Presumably the articles will show the wealthy "cashing out" via loopholes that evade the tax.

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

#89

Post by f38zf5vdt »

pmoriarty wrote: post #75
naasking wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many of the ultra-wealthy have little or no income. What needs to be taxed is wealth, not income.

A wealth tax will fail for the same reason the income tax has failed. The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles and strut up to the tax authority saying, "See? I own very little." It becomes the legislative cat and mouse game, which governments lose when up against those with massive assets with which to lobby.

There is not a good answer that I have found to the taxation issue. Wealth is self-sustaining over the short term like advantageous mutations are self-sustaining in biological systems.

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

#90

Post by mrkurt »

jvanderbot wrote: post #86

What I don't understand is: If I (a wage slave) find a football sized diamond in my back yard, I'm suddenly very "wealthy". Should I be forced to pay taxes on that find because my wealth has increased? What if I want to keep that diamond but cannot afford to because of the taxes? Isn't that how business owners gain wealth: By the valuation defined by others to the thing they "found". Should we force Bezos et al to se…

You do own taxes if you find a diamond. You don't owe taxes if you buy a rock for $10 and it increases in value to $50m.

If you want to keep something you find and can't afford to because of taxes, you either get a loan or have to sell it.

Post reply on HN