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

161–170 of 185 posts

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#161

Post by aaronschroeder »

lamontcg wrote: post #155
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.

I'm not saying to stick the middle class with the tax bill - just pointing out that taxes on the rich usually end up being paid by the middle class whether intended or not.

The better solution is to cut spending and the need for more taxes in general.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#162

Post by aaronschroeder »

alkonaut wrote: post #137
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 don't think it's fair to force them to sell shares so they can cover higher taxes. If the treshold is high (say $1B) then I don’t think it would be that unfair to tax stock like property at e.g 1% a year. Diluting power would just be a secondary benefit in megacorps.

I just don't see that working in practice. I've worked hard to build a small company and can't imagine losing 1% a year. The longer I work the less I own. If this was the reality, people would find a way around it even if it meant incorporating in another country entirely. And lets be honest, it would start at 1% and go up from there. We pay almost 2% / year of our home value in property tax.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#163

Post by daenz »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #158
daenz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fortunately for all of us, you don't get to dictate the purpose of the 2A, they do.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#164

Post by Dracophoenix »

zorak8me wrote: post #126
spikels wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How is that any different than paying with a credit card or using reward points? Those aren't taxable or treated like income so why should loans and mortgages be?

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#165

Post by knodi123 »

imgabe wrote: post #98
knodi123 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the difference is that borrowing against your unrealized investments is a way of dodging taxes. I think the tax code can handle that level of subtlety without paying attention to your flippant reductio ad absurdum.

Sure and borrowing $750k to buy a house is a nifty way for me to get $750k without having to pay income taxes on $750k worth of income. What an amazing loophole that gives me completely free money and no taxes! What the government could do is stop loaning out money at 0% (i.e. printing free money which inflates assets, like stocks held by wealthy people). If the prime rate increased, the rate banks would charge on as…

> Sure and borrowing $750k to buy a house is a nifty way for me to get $750k without having to pay income taxes on $750k worth of income.

That's now how borrowing money to buy a house works.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#166

Post by imgabe »

knodi123 wrote: post #165
imgabe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure and borrowing $750k to buy a house is a nifty way for me to get $750k without having to pay income taxes on $750k worth of income. What an amazing loophole that gives me completely free money and no taxes! What the government could do is stop loaning out money at 0% (i.e. printing free money which inflates assets, like stocks held by wealthy people). If the prime rate increased, the rate banks would charge on as…

> Sure and borrowing $750k to buy a house is a nifty way for me to get $750k without having to pay income taxes on $750k worth of income. That's now how borrowing money to buy a house works.

Yeah and “free money you never pay taxes on” is not how borrowing against stocks works either

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#167

Post by BlueDingo »

aaronschroeder wrote: post #162
alkonaut wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's fair to force them to sell shares so they can cover higher taxes. If the treshold is high (say $1B) then I don’t think it would be that unfair to tax stock like property at e.g 1% a year. Diluting power would just be a secondary benefit in megacorps.

I just don't see that working in practice. I've worked hard to build a small company and can't imagine losing 1% a year. The longer I work the less I own. If this was the reality, people would find a way around it even if it meant incorporating in another country entirely. And lets be honest, it would start at 1% and go up from there. We pay almost 2% / year of our home value in property tax.

Perhaps the parent comment was edited, but surely the 1bn threshold would cover your situation?

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#168

Post by aaomidi »

daenz wrote: post #163
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fortunately for all of us, you don't get to dictate the purpose of the 2A, they do.

Actually, we the people do.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#169

Post by refurb »

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…

But capital gains is taxed as income. What you’re talking about is unrealized income.

Would it make sense for tech workers to pay taxes on the options they hold as a part of their employment? That’s just deferred income as well.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#170

Post by refurb »

benlivengood wrote: post #143
rayiner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have a billion in stock, you could leverage that to pay personal expenses. And how do you pay back that loan? > You could use an unrealized loss over there to balance out the cash you're taking in from a gain over there. So can everyone. > If you play that game long enough, your descendants will get a cost basis step up. That's a strong argument for reforming estate taxation.

> And how do you pay back that loan? Get another loan. If you're rich your assets are growing and so refinancing an existing loan with a larger one gives you more cash to spend and to perform perfunctory maintenance on the loan until it's time for an even bigger loan. Dying in debt to your trust fund just means the trust fund can write off a large loss before estate taxes.

This is not how it works. You don’t write off secured debt loses when you die all the while passing on billions of assets.

I swear people just make things up to try and prove their point.

Post reply on HN