Wealthiest U.S. executives paid little to nothing in federal income taxes • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by imtringued » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #27

Aqueous wrote: 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…

During COVID governments spent and spent. Now the check must be paid. By us, as always. Since income is already taxed at about 50% pretty much everywhere in the developed world, it is time to tax the existing wealth. These articles are meant to prepare the public for it. They influence but also measure the public support for a wealth tax. It could be an all wealth or only a unrealized capital gains tax, similar to pr…

>During COVID governments spent and spent. Now the check must be paid. By us, as always

It doesn't. The US is the deficit black hole of the entire world. All the trade surplus nations are suckers that give you free stuff. Germany wants to run an export surplus for all eternity. How are importing nations supposed to pay their debts back if Germany never reverses positions and starts a buying spree to balance its selling spree? Here is the thing. Germany never planned on its debtors ever repaying their debts because that is incompatible with an export surplus. They are giving out real goods for promises that they themselves consider worthless.

Consider Greece as an extreme example. Germany had a trade surplus with Greece and handed out loans. The debt to GDP ratio of Greece rose as a result. The 2008 crisis caused people to panic when they saw that Greece had rampant corruption but it was growing 5% despite the corruption. So what did they do? Germany forced austerity in the most idiotic way. Greece cut domestic spending but not foreign spending. The German trade surplus remained and thus the debt could never be repaid in the first place. The only way the Greek debt can disappear is if Germany imports Greek goods as this represents a flow of euros into Greece which then immediately flow back to repay the loans.

Thus the only logical solution to the regressive German export addiction is to not honor their debts and let them realize what they have done. Germany was voluntarily giving away its wealth at the expensive of its citizens. Export surpluses are something countries grow out of once they are developed. Only developing nations get to do it to kick start their economy.

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

#122

Post by imtringued » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #39

QuixoticQuibit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recently proposed wealth taxes (e.g., Elizabeth Warren’s proposal) that work the way you’ve described would only start on wealth above $50 million. So your framing of such a tax as a way to steal from your working-class retirement funds is incredibly disingenuous. Unless, of course, you have 8+ figures of wealth. In which case I hope one day you’re made to pay your fair share to society.

Once a new tax is imposed, its limits and brackets are probably the easiest things to change about it. Moreover, if they aren’t inflation-adjusted, the Fed will make sure we’ll all get there pretty soon, just by printing money like they are doing these days. Anybody who has any legally earned wealth has already paid his fair share to the society by simply creating the corresponding value. Usually value creators get a…

>Once a new tax is imposed, its limits and brackets are probably the easiest things to change about it.

Just introduce a tax on money held in bank accounts. Doesn't matter if its above $100k or $1 million.

>Moreover, if they aren’t inflation-adjusted, the Fed will make sure we’ll all get there pretty soon, just by printing money like they are doing these days.

When people are stupid enough to "invest" into money you run into an obvious problem. The supply of money is limited. Every dollar that is being saved makes it harder to save the next. So you have to create new money as people save money. The conventional way is to run a government deficit. The better way is to stop regressive saving in money by introducing a negative interest rate for big accounts.

Investments don't matter. Even if the rich HODL all existing stocks someone can start a new company that you can invest into. Old businesses can also issue new shares without people being angry. None of this is zero sum. But saving money? Oh boy, that is the most zero sum way to "invest". The only reason the system hasn't collapsed is that the Fed is making sure that every time a dollar is being hoarded there is a new one to replace it.

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

#123

Post by imtringued » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

dayk995 wrote: post #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…

Charge a negative interest rate on their bank accounts. If their income is derived from selling assets they will lose a lot from the negative interest rates because they take the loan ahead of time.

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

#124

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #20

Aqueous wrote: 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…

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...

How is property tax regressive? Renters don't pay it and it is a flat tax across home value?

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

#125

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

tyleo wrote: post #81

Aqueous wrote: 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 o…

The main difference is wealth is only realized when it is liquidated. Investments appreciate and depreciate over time, so it makes sense to tax when you cash out. You could pay taxes on your retirement savings gains every year, and then then end up with less than you put in if value goes back down before you pull it out.

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

#126

Post by professoretc » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #53

germinalphrase wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell.” Unless, of course, we’re talking about the only meaningful asset an average person might own -their house- then we tax its assessed value every year.

>-their house- then we tax its assessed value every year. It depends on how the property tax is implemented. Is California's property tax with Proposition 13 a true "wealth tax" that people mentally think of in this thread? Here's an example of a property in Silicon Valley being assessed at $146k but the real market value was $3+ million. The assessed value wasn't readjusted to the higher market value until it was so…

And the reason why we have prop 13 is because there was a period in which housing values in California increased dramatically, and we literally had seniors having to sell the homes they'd lived in for decades, because they couldn't afford the newly-assessed property taxes.

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

#127

Post by maverick-iceman » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #95

QuixoticQuibit wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk (and other stupidly rich executives) created hundreds of billions of dollars of value themselves? Of course not. They got their through exploitation. Any profit that a business has is value not being paid back to the actual workers who created the value of the company through their labor. Nobody has ever worked for $100 billion. Or $1 billion. Or $100 million.

> Nobody has ever worked for $100 billion. Or $1 billion. Or $100 million. Of course. However, some of us had had a positive impact on the society measurable in Trillions, usually through ideas and entrepreneurship. It is preferably for us a society to encourage such endeavors. Neither Bezos nor Musk have created that value by themselves. They did it together with investors, partners, employees and clients, all of wh…

> The only unhappy are those who did not participate to any of it, but they have no right to complain, just envy.

What is right or wrong is just semantics, in reality a mob with pitchforks doesn't care about semantics.

Humans have forced the redistribution of resources concentrated in few hands since the beginning of time

As an entrepreneur the quality of life you provide to people has a really short shelf life, as soon as the hedonistic treadmill adjusts , people start looking at the monetary reward that the entrepreneur got for providing such quality of life...and all of a sudden they think it's not fair because hedonistic treadmill made that monetary reward becomes excessive in retrospect.

Bezos critics have been using Amazon in the current form ever since the early 2010s now, and Amazon rate of innovation has dropped, so hedonistic treadmill did catch up and now they want Bezos head.

Same thing happened with Microsoft. The transition from 3.1 to Win95 was something which shocked the whole world, people were talking about honorary President Bill Gates.

Rate of innovation slowed down from Win95 to Win98 and all of a sudden people began looking at Bill Gates 150B wealth back in 1999 and pressure mounted to break up Microsoft and arrest Bill Gates and expropriate his wealth

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

#128

Post by Retric » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124

Retric wrote: 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...

How is property tax regressive? Renters don't pay it and it is a flat tax across home value?

Because people generally spend a lower percentage of their income on cars and housing as their income increases. The minimums for shelter and transportation are hard to avoid.

Put another way the percentage of people making say 50k with a 20+k worth of car(s) is greater than the percentage of people making 50 million a year with 20+ million in car(s). Similarly it’s not that rare for retirees to be house rich owning say a 1+ million dollar house while having less than a 50k a year income. On the other hand someone making 50 million is extremely unlikely to have 1+ billion dollars in personal property.

It’s true the rich may own a yacht, but they are also likely to completely avoid paying personal property taxes on it.

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

#129

Post by dexterdog » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124

Retric wrote: 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...

How is property tax regressive? Renters don't pay it and it is a flat tax across home value?

How do renters not pay property tax? It's part of the cost of the property that the rent is based on.

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

#130

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #129

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is property tax regressive? Renters don't pay it and it is a flat tax across home value?

How do renters not pay property tax? It's part of the cost of the property that the rent is based on.

Not any more than I pay corporate taxes at the groceries because it is baked into the price of goods.

In some places, property taxes could impact rent, but in many places it doesn't matter because the price of rent is much higher than the cost of owning the rental (including tax). This is most true in places where you can't build more housing inventory.