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

171–180 of 185 posts

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#171

Post by cheriot »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #164
zorak8me wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The difference is what secures the loan:

- credit card: nothing

- mortgage: the house

- car loan: the car

One could make rules about loans secured by assets with unrealized gains (with an exemption for a primary residence).

PS Credit card reward points are taxed as interest income in the US so look for a 1099 INT.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#172

Post by cheriot »

vinni2 wrote: post #3

I wonder what people think of Norwegian system where everyone’s tax information is public. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/09/04/in-norway...

A middle ground might be public tax info for the richest 100 people. Most of them are verifying their wealth for Forbes and Bloomberg rich lists anyway.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#173

Post by brnt »

daenz wrote: post #124
brnt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You implied that democratic control over your taxes was not enough. I wanted to point out you have far less control over how people who don't pay tax and who you don't elect. I am glad you now agree that democratic control is an altogether preferable situation than letting billionaires spend their money undertaxed as they please.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#174

Post by qqqwerty »

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.

The only reason "your money" has any value at all is because it can be used to pay taxes. USD is not backed by anything other than the government's "threat of force" to collect taxes.

So in essence, taxes are a service to you, they make your money worth something to other people. Without that, we would be using soda pop bottles (or whatever) instead.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#175

Post by qqqwerty »

robryan wrote: post #87
mupuff1234 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not fair to force them? I don't think it's any more or less fair than forcing people to pay income tax.

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

Why would they need to sell anything? Just take a salary large enough to cover the wealth taxes. A CEO with a $100M net worth should easily be able to command a salary greater than $1M.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#176

Post by qqqwerty »

bendbro wrote: post #78
pontus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that taxing unrealized capital gains is a fundamentally flawed approach. However, the problem with the current system is that these ultra-wealthy people just end up borrowing against their equity, avoiding selling if possible. I think it would make sense to count borrowing against equity as tax-wise equivalent to selling that same equity. With that loophole closed, together with raising the capital gains tax,…

They don't "avoid selling," at least in the way you and others are implying. They only delay selling. At some point the loan must be paid back, and at that point they will have to sell something or take income, which incurs either income or capital gains tax. And a trivial way to work around your proposed rule: borrow without collateral. Why would a lender be willing to do this? Because they know the other party is w…

> At some point the loan must be paid back

And in the meantime, they get to retain the full power and influence that comes with the stock/company that they control. The wealth inequality issue is as much about power dynamics as it is about dollars and cents.

> borrow without collateral

And it would be trivial to write the law to prevent that loophole. If a person has any unrealized gain over a certain amount, then any personal loan, secured or not, would qualify for some sort of realized gain tax.

Personally, I think it is simpler and more elegant to implement a wealth tax. It would encourage the wealthy to take more income or dividends to cover the tax, and it would also help shift investments towards more profitable/cash flow positive ventures. For example, all of the tech unicorns burning loads of VC money to acquire negative cash flow would be penalized under such a scenario.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#177

Post by H8crilA »

sneak wrote: post #149
H8crilA wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying assumption that prices only go up. It's so deep in the culture you don't even see the absurdity of not building any equity except for what's generated by upwards price momentum.

Well, population growth has been a constant throughout that culture and that nation's entire history, so all of the consequences of that are to be expected, no?

Housing prices always reverts back to CPI over multiple decades, i.e they offer no real capital gain. Robert Shiller wrote a lot about this.

Also I don't understand how a growing population leads to increasing prices, while there's so damn much unused land? Either there is enough new land, then people eventually spread out (and prices revert to the CPI, to the cost of construction), or there isn't enough land and homelessness increases as more and more people are completely priced out. Right now nearly every country is in the first situation.

I'm sorry, but HELOC is really just dumb.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#178

Post by clifdweller »

zorak8me wrote: post #58
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…

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...

I think this is where at least talking about rather than a wealth tax a usage tax. Now some will fall through the cracks as a billionaire that lives like a middle class person would be taxed as such but that could be viewed as fair since the assumption is at some point the wealth will be spent and taxed. The trick of a usage tax though is some kind of baseline income or offset to prevent the inevitable result of permanent poverty as rich have the safety net of wealth and a usage tax just encourages them to hoard more and distribute less to employees.

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#179

Post by throwaway210222 »

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?

4. They set up charities.

How exactly does giving money to other people help a millionaire fund his/her lifestyle?

Surely the IRS you cannot have a charity that donates to just your family?

I wish these articles would be specific [so I can setup my own :) ].

Re: Tax details of US super-rich allegedly leaked

#180

Post by chrismcb »

zorak8me wrote: post #58
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…

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...

But how did the get that 10m? Presumably they paid taxes on the 10m when it was earned.
Post reply on HN