Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked • Hacker News Board

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#121

Post by daenz » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

II2II wrote: post #111

daenz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust politicians to redistribute money fairly and with accountability?

A more meaningful questions is: do you trust governments to provide services fairly and with accountability? Framing the question in terms of politicians redistributing money sounds like an attempt to use base emotions to reach a foregone conclusion. I would like to think that framing the question in terms of governments providing services encourages people to examine how governments work and what they actually have…

It's not a service if I can't opt out of paying for it. My money is being redistributed, through the implicit threat of force, to all kinds of things, whether they are good ideas or not. There are no competitors and I can't choose what my taxes are spent on. Politicians do not provide services, they redistribute money.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#122

Post by mindcandy » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #48

zorak8me wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am confused. They were clearly discussing unrealized gains as wealth throughout the article. What am I missing here?

Look at this sentence in the Propublica article: > No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. It is clickbait, emotion inducing garbage. Buffett’s stance for higher taxes has nothing to do with the fact that he had less income than other rich people. I expected better…

I read through the ProPublica article. What I got from it was:

1. They have a lot of unrealized gains. 2. They have losses. 3. They take out loans against those gains. I assume the play there is "I'll deal with it later (after 20 years of inflation-rate interest)." 4. They set up charities. 5. They lose money owning sports teams.

Did I miss anything?

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#123

Post by imgabe » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

arn wrote: post #117

imgabe wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Estate taxes make a lot more sense. Heirs don’t need to get free billions of dollars for doing nothing and I have no problems with taxing dead people.

Well, estate tax already exists.

Sure, but it’s pretty toothless and there are many ways to avoid it.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#124

Post by daenz » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

brnt wrote: post #115

daenz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want to control someone else?

You were asking how to make those spending your money accountable (be it by spending your taxes or saved money through deductions or lower or absent taxes). You were seeking control, and I explained to you how and where you have it.

Exerting control over an elected representative is worlds apart from wanting control over a private citizen.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#125

Post by jrs235 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #97

daenz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust politicians to redistribute money fairly and with accountability?

I don’t trust politicians but as David Harvey has said, “wealth redistribution is the lowest form of socialism”. The ideal way is that wealth is more equitably distributed before it is created. Instead of a system where business owners represent a tiny minority, who then grow very wealthy and are taxed, we could have a system where everyone owns a little piece of the economy. At its simplest this could be realized by…

Quid pro quo. I have zero issues if individuals want to conduct transactions with their full [individual] legal and financial liability on the line. But if/when one wants the privilege of government recognized legal and financial limited liability in transactions then I have zero issues with those transactions being regulated and taxed.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#126

Post by zorak8me » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

spikels wrote: post #105

zorak8me wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One solution- if someone is taking out personal loans that function like income, let’s tax it like income. If someone really wants to live on 80k a year, that’s fine. But if they’re reporting 80k income but spending 10M, maybe they should be paying their fair share on that. Edit- this has the benefit of completely avoiding the issue of unrealized gains and sticks to the issue of income...

When does a loan "function like income"? What happens when they pay the loan back? Does the lender get a deduction? > But if they’re reporting 80k income but spending 10M, maybe they should be paying their fair share on that. A tax on spending (i.e. a sales tax) is a much more efficient means to achieve this.

It functions like income when they treat it like an average person treats their income. Spending on their home, their car, travel, etc. They’re using the loan to avoid taking income or realizing gains.

But yeah, I would be down for a more sensible sales tax situation. I’m sure there are a hundred ways to skin this cat.

Edit: ways

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#127

Post by spikels » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #59

arn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems the solution to that (if u think it’s a problem) is eliminating step up basis. The reason that works is that basis is reset at death.

Estate taxes make a lot more sense. Heirs don’t need to get free billions of dollars for doing nothing and I have no problems with taxing dead people.

Why not both? They are different things.

The free step-up in basis at death makes no sense for the very wealthy. The rule originates from the difficulty in determining the basis of assets of dead people. The very wealthy have accountants that track this.

Warren Buffett can pay capital-gains tax AND estate tax.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#128

Post by bradjohnson » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #110

bradjohnson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really true. If you receive RSUs as part of compensation, you have to pay taxes according to the value of the stock at the time of vesting. You also have to pay tax when you sell the stock equal to the difference in price from vesting. You might get a refund or you might pay more taxes when you sell, but there is precedent to paying taxes on stock that you currently hold.

Isn’t that generally a problem where people get slammed with huge tax bills on stock they aren’t able to sell and may not have the cash available to pay? Why would we want to do more of that?

>Isn’t that generally a problem where people get slammed with huge tax bills on stock they aren’t able to sell and may not have the cash available to pay?

No, I can't say I've ever heard of that happening. You should be able to sell to cover. This will typically happen during an open trading window and brokerages will offer an option for "sell to cover".

>Why would we want to do more of that?

I didn't make a value statement one way or the other. I'm just saying your claim is wrong and maybe your misunderstanding of taxation on stock is not the reason that unrealized capital gains aren't taxed.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#129

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

mindcandy wrote: post #122

lotsofpulp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at this sentence in the Propublica article: > No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. It is clickbait, emotion inducing garbage. Buffett’s stance for higher taxes has nothing to do with the fact that he had less income than other rich people. I expected better…

I read through the ProPublica article. What I got from it was: 1. They have a lot of unrealized gains. 2. They have losses. 3. They take out loans against those gains. I assume the play there is "I'll deal with it later (after 20 years of inflation-rate interest)." 4. They set up charities. 5. They lose money owning sports teams. Did I miss anything?

Yes, that summarizes it, but all of that was already known and did not to be supported by leaked tax records. The root cause is automation and technology is allowing for more winner take all markets, combined with government money printing and reduced power of labor to negotiate for a bigger piece of the pie means assets keep getting more and more valuable.

Which lead to ever widening wealth gaps which might not be good for society, so taxing unrealized gains might be an answer.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#130

Post by marsrover » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

marsrover wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the country is fundamentally broken.

> the country is fundamentally broken As in people ascribe ongoing debates to the system being broken, yes. Literally in this thread we have good arguments for reducing capital gains tax exclusions and special treatments and arguments for.

Make all the good arguments you want, won't change anything.