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

Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#151

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

dougmwne wrote: post #24
01100011 wrote: post #5

I've seen people complaining that the article is disingenuous because it conflates income taxes with capital gains taxes. My response is 'so what'. When you make above a certain income level, you don't need anymore income and can play around with reinvesting capital gains to push taxes into the future while amassing wealth. Sure, you're not realizing the income, but what you're doing, I think, is gaining power and in…

Once you have a certain amount of assets, there's no need to realize any personal income. It becomes completely voluntary. If you have a billion in stock, you could leverage that to pay personal expenses. You could use an unrealized loss over there to balance out the cash you're taking in from a gain over there. You can use companies and foundations to execute any vision you have outside of your household. If you pla…

That's why anyone at all serious about taxes would just tax property (of any kind as long as it legally exists) and recorded transactions.

Forget income taxes, that's just snooping on the cattle.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#152

Post by gigel82 »

atlgator wrote: post #135
gigel82 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean shareholders, not employees.

Shareholders and employees. Where do you think salaries come from? If employees could generate income in isolation they wouldn't need jobs would they? The assets of a company are a shared resource that benefit everyone involved with the company as well as the supply chain. Does it benefit shareholders more? Yes. Should tax loopholes be closed? Yes.

That stopped being true sometime in the early '70s unfortunately: https://archive.is/Ouf6d

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#153

Post by [deleted] »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #28
jakelazaroff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a certain level of wealth, you are the game. Amazon’s famous HQ2 contest was literally about which city would bend its own tax laws to benefit them most.

If only they got something in return for providing those incentives...

[deleted]

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#154

Post by lamontcg »

daenz wrote: post #72
dougmwne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you have a certain amount of assets, there's no need to realize any personal income. It becomes completely voluntary. If you have a billion in stock, you could leverage that to pay personal expenses. You could use an unrealized loss over there to balance out the cash you're taking in from a gain over there. You can use companies and foundations to execute any vision you have outside of your household. If you pla…

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

Better than letting the super rich keep it all while a few of them launder all their images by being charitable.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#155

Post by lamontcg »

aaronschroeder wrote: post #17

But what is the solution? Most wealth of people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos is tied to ownership shares in their companies. I don't think it's fair to force them to sell shares so they can cover higher taxes. I also fear efforts to extract more tax money from them will ultimately just raise the bill for the middle class. The ultra wealthy can afford to hire a team of accountants to find the loopholes while small bu…

> I also fear efforts to extract more tax money from them will ultimately just raise the bill for the middle class.

This is bonkers logic. You stick the middle class with the tax bill because otherwise the middle class might be stuck with the tax bill.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#156

Post by [deleted] »

shoto_io wrote: post #65
jakelazaroff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a certain level of wealth, you are the game. Amazon’s famous HQ2 contest was literally about which city would bend its own tax laws to benefit them most.

That’s certainly a fair point. However, your example of HQ2 didn't play out well, did it?

[deleted]

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#157

Post by duped »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #96
duped wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital gains should be taxed as income when it's realized as income. You can't reinvest your capital gains without the tax penalty. However, it is completely unreasonable for long term capital gains to be taxed any differently than normal income. A dollar earned should be a dollar taxed.

The idea is to incentivize long term investment while also trying to smooth out volatility by making short term investments less profitable. Or, put differently, people want day traders to be taxed at a higher rate than average people investing.

One year is not long term investment.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#158

Post by MisterBastahrd »

daenz wrote: post #108
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was literally written because the United States government did not have a standing army and there were no immediate intentions to create one. Every other reason is secondary to that one.

That is the historical context, but not the purpose. You can have your own theories, but SCOTUS has ruled on this in DC vs Heller.

The Supreme Court is hardly a group of apolitical history experts, so no thanks.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#159

Post by [deleted] »

daenz wrote: post #121
II2II wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#160

Post by aaronschroeder »

idiotsecant wrote: post #92
robryan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be unintended consequences in forcing successful founders to over time sell down a controlling stake in their company.

This is like saying that homeowners are being forced to sell their homes over time to pay for property tax.

Some are. We live in an area where annual taxes are about 2% the value of the home. Home values have been skyrocketing and taxes along with them. Some people on fixed incomes can't afford it so are forced to sell. I think property tax should be abolished in general, but the problem with taxing ownership of a company is that owners are then forced to spend that much less on expenses to cover their tax burden (fewer jobs, or lower salaries for employees).

A lot of companies operate close to break-even or even at a loss. What happens with the owner of a $2m / year company must come up with a 10% wealth tax amounting to $200k, but the company is operating at break-even? Expenses must be cut to pay the tax. Ultimately hurts the lower and middle class the most.

Post reply on HN