Live data from Hacker News

Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

thestar.com

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#81
post #14

I'm a little baffled why there have been all these articles of this category recently. It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell. That's how it works for everyone who invests their savings. This isn't a 'tax-avoidance' tactic - it's just what owning something is. Are we really advocating for a world where you are taxed just for appreciation? Maybe we are but at least be honest…

I’m finding the idea of taxing wealth less strange the more I think about it. At this point I find it almost equivalently strange to taxing income. Assuming there were no income tax I feel like your second paragraph could be rephrased:

I’m all for taxing the rich more, but I personally don’t want to pay taxes yearly on wages I’m saving every year until I retire, at which point I will spend the savings and pay taxes on consumption.

Objectively, I’m not sure one is much better/worse than the other. One is just more familiar.

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#82
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except property tax is a wealth tax. So we have a wealth tax, it’s just highly regressive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_Sta...

Property tax is interesting but probably in a different category as you are sharing space/property with a local government. I hope we have a historian here that knows the background and rationale on property tax. It is interesting that it is tied to the value of the property and not simply based on the size of the lot.

[deleted]

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#83
post #14

I'm a little baffled why there have been all these articles of this category recently. It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell. That's how it works for everyone who invests their savings. This isn't a 'tax-avoidance' tactic - it's just what owning something is. Are we really advocating for a world where you are taxed just for appreciation? Maybe we are but at least be honest…

Joe Public doesn't get any of that. They see the headline and run with it.

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#84
post #14

I'm a little baffled why there have been all these articles of this category recently. It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell. That's how it works for everyone who invests their savings. This isn't a 'tax-avoidance' tactic - it's just what owning something is. Are we really advocating for a world where you are taxed just for appreciation? Maybe we are but at least be honest…

> I'm a little baffled why there have been all these articles of this category recently. It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell. That's how it works for everyone who invests their savings. Since most of the population has absolutely nothing saved, capital gains taxes on their index funds are completely irrelevant. I agree that having normal people paying cap gains on their s…

> Since most of the population has absolutely nothing saved, capital gains taxes on their index funds are completely irrelevant.

That’s not true for US - “ overall median net worth of U.S. households, which is $121,700.”[1]

Capital gains can be especially problematic on housing, where let’s say a retire bought in the 70s and now wants to downsize, that $250k individual or $500k married exception isn’t going to cover their “gain” on the house, when in reality only part of it is real gain. Let’s say the house was bought for $25k in 1970 (CA average at the time) and sold for 814k (CA average for April 2021). That’s 814k - 25k base price of the asset less 250k (assuming windowed filing single) = 539k taxable capital gain. However, that 25k in today’s money is more like $178k[2], so we are taxing inflation “gain” that’s not actually real value already.

The Biden approach of taxing cap gains over $1m is going to impact a lot more American dream type of regular people (sold home for a good gain, sold a small business, etc).

The Warren wealth tax approach is going to be next to impossible to collect.

Swiss have managed to pull off a wealth tax (0.3 to 0.5%) on all wealth and also have low income tax rates, compensated for with VAT and other consumption/use taxes[3].

Perhaps we can learn something there - I’d prefer to see lower income and gains taxes for most people to enable wealth building for most of the population and more focus on use of the money, e.g buying regular food should be no tax (it’s a necessity), but buying a private jet can be 50% VAT (value added tax). Buying a Camry same idea say 10% VAT (or no tax at all as necessity?), but buying a $500k sports car, can be 25% VAT. This way the regular folks leading regular lifestyles don’t end up heavily taxed, but luxury consumption is.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/select/average-net-worth-by-age/ [2] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=25000&year1=19... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#85
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property tax is interesting but probably in a different category as you are sharing space/property with a local government. I hope we have a historian here that knows the background and rationale on property tax. It is interesting that it is tied to the value of the property and not simply based on the size of the lot.

Not a historian but I suspect that property taxes were originally meant to pay for things like infrastructure, garbage, police, firefighters, schools, etc. Pretty much community costs incurred by the development of the area including and around your property. Of course, without actual transparence and accountability and considering the state of said infrastructure, schools, etc, it is hard to know where these taxes a…

That doesn’t explain taxing boats/cars/etc.

The historic reality is property tax was equivalent to wealth tax for thousands of years. It’s only recently that intangible assets became so valuable.

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#86
I admit I don't know how this all works. But just a few naive questions: if these folks are taking out loans backed by the shares of their stock, how do you repay that loan without triggering a taxable event (ie selling shares). If we as a society want to prevent this from happening, can the government force the banks to raise the rates on these types of loans so it becomes less attractive for these individuals. The US could then require that some % of that loan to account for taxes.

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#88
post #14

I'm a little baffled why there have been all these articles of this category recently. It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell. That's how it works for everyone who invests their savings. This isn't a 'tax-avoidance' tactic - it's just what owning something is. Are we really advocating for a world where you are taxed just for appreciation? Maybe we are but at least be honest…

Agreed. My favorite breakdown of this view is from David Mitchell [1] I am not sure what would happen economically if we started taxing all assets, non-income, etc... How much should people pay yearly on wedding rings, gold teeth, clothes, music collections? Would we have to itemize all possessions and have them assessed? [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc [potentially nsfw language]

I'm definitely going to make friends with a personal posession assessor, together we'll make sure that our enemies with gold teeth have those teeth valued higher. I'd bid that tooth up higher. It's got real value AND emotional value.

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#89
Already discussed many times:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27441277 (267 points/12 days ago/404 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27432326 (1031 points/13 days ago/970 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27434307 (609 points/13 days ago/568 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27474673 (37 points/9 days ago/21 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27435983 (28 points/12 days ago/6 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27546005 (25 points/3 days ago/8 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27465272 (20 points/10 days ago//21 comments)

Re: Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes

#90
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like what people really want is a wealth weighted income tax, so your tax rate on income is based on how wealthy you are, not how much you made in a single year.

Under that system you would be rewarded for not productively generating any cash flow from the assets you own.

If you are taxed 99 cents for every dollar you earn, you're still better off earning the dollar.
Post reply on HN