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

The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#51

Post by DimitriPetrova »

nightski wrote: post #44
eigenrick wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is not that it's taking money from the rich. I mean, that's a necessary part of it. The point is that that money is forced to recirculate in the system. The thing people seem to forget is that taxed money doesn't just disappear. It right back into the economy. The target, predominately, is the working class, either directly via Gov't employee wages, or social programs. Or it goes back indirectly, th…

The rich do not usually sit with cash in their bank account, and even if they do the system is built to keep that money recirculating. Banks use fractional reserve lending to take those deposits and lend them out several times forward. Otherwise the money gets invested in companies from your large caps, small caps, VC, to angel funding, etc... Basically there is no such thing as stagnant money imho. What taxes imply…

No post body was provided.

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#52

Post by lesuorac »

justinzollars wrote: post #48
imtringued wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't tax work at all. We should tax resources and land because they are part of nature and we should use them as little as possible for efficiency's sake. A tax on work basically tells us to use people as little as possible, e.g. use more automation than necessary. You end up with a situation where you both have too many robots and too many unemployed people.

> We should tax resources and land because they are part of nature and we should use them as little as possible for efficiency's sake. I own land, and do not believe property should be subject to any tax. Are we citizens with property? Or surfs where the state, grants us the ability to use land?

Does that land have a house? Did you get a permit from the state for that house's construction?

Pretty much every in the US you need permission from the state to do something with land.

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#53

Post by lapetitejort »

labster wrote: post #41
lapetitejort wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, tax cuts haven't work yet, but that's because they're still too high!! One more should do it.

I doubt tax cuts for the rich would do it alone. Perhaps when combined with a 40 year copyright extension will we really see a flourishing of the poors.

We've almost cracked it. Let's lower the definition of high speed internet to 500 Kbps, raise the short term interest rate cap to 3600%, and repeal the Onion Futures Act.

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#54

Post by scotu »

justinzollars wrote: post #45
scotu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

false dichotomy, even if you believe SF spends money wrong, that doesn't justify the tax cuts for the rich

That's not true. If the money is wasted, why tax at all? It seems punitive. Many that wish to see money lit on fire, rather than put to productive use.

I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options:

you say:

> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth

and then, you don't believe that works because:

> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending

So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.

Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#55

Post by readthenotes1 »

wang_li wrote: post #30
aemreunal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is surprising either. The whole "trickle-down economics" arguments for such tax cuts have always sounded... bullshit (for lack of a better word), exacerbated by the fact that decades of it (since the Reagan era in the US, for example) has only served to make the rich richer, poor poorer and erode the middle class completely. If it was a brilliant idea (i.e. the idea that the the only thing holding…

The poor are not getting poorer and the middle class is becoming rich. In the US anyway. Fundamentally the problem is that people think that someone having more money than then is some kind of ethical issue. Not to mention something like 100% of these analyses are univariate and that makes no sense at all since it's perfectly rational that a 20 year old has much less wealth and income than a 60 year old with an advan…

Citations? (I recall reading an article claiming this is what happened to the middle class about a decade ago, but I don't remember where or how trustworthy. It's hard to reconcile with the real lack of increase in real wages.)

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#56

Post by [deleted] »

scotu wrote: post #54
justinzollars wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. If the money is wasted, why tax at all? It seems punitive. Many that wish to see money lit on fire, rather than put to productive use.

I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options: you say: > I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth and then, you don't believe that works because: > I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its s…

[deleted]

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#57

Post by justinzollars »

scotu wrote: post #54
justinzollars wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. If the money is wasted, why tax at all? It seems punitive. Many that wish to see money lit on fire, rather than put to productive use.

I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options: you say: > I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth and then, you don't believe that works because: > I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its s…

I see you live in San Francisco, presumably you haven't lived there long, and presumably you've never actually talked with a homeless person or a "less wealthy" individual who would benefit from your ideas.

SF spends over a billion dollars a year on the homeless, and I have trouble finding a homeless person who receives 10 cents. The money, I'm suggesting, is almost all stolen, it ends up in salaries, pensions and political donations - with almost nothing reaching the homeless.

Collectivism is a great concept. It's academic, and you have the ability to accuse strangers of "not caring about the less wealthy". Personally, I think you are a fool who is being taken advantage of by politicians who are stealing your money to pad their pockets.

My challenge to you, is try to find some of the billion dollars SF spends each year on the homeless to reach just one individual. Just one person. Then come back and ask me for more money.

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#59

Post by scotu »

justinzollars wrote: post #57
scotu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options: you say: > I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth and then, you don't believe that works because: > I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its s…

I see you live in San Francisco, presumably you haven't lived there long, and presumably you've never actually talked with a homeless person or a "less wealthy" individual who would benefit from your ideas. SF spends over a billion dollars a year on the homeless, and I have trouble finding a homeless person who receives 10 cents. The money, I'm suggesting, is almost all stolen, it ends up in salaries, pensions and po…

we got it, you don't like SF government. You don't have to manage tax money like SF does only because you decide not to do rich tax cuts. Again, it's a false dichotomy.

And the fact that SF government doesn't work doesn't negate that tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, so why should the 99% support these cuts if they are not going to benefit from them?

I don't want you to vote against your interests, I want all others to vote in favor of theirs (against politicians that sell the tax cuts as "trickle down economics")

Re: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

#60

Post by s1artibartfast »

InTheArena wrote: post #32
carbonguy wrote: post #3

From the abstract: > We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy. I'd be interested in hearing from those…

I feel like this is a straw man arguement - There is a presupposition that the only purpose of tax-cuts here is trickle down effects. There is also a concern of increasing inequality. Modern Inequality is _not_ driven by tax rate. The tax system in the USA is a income tax (the only thing authorized in the constitution). What folks here have created is wealth that is relatively il-liquid. What has changed is that inte…

Thank you! If you want to focus on inequality and the lavish spending of the rich look at a progressive sales tax, value-added taxes, inheritance taxes, and progressive capital gain. That is a hyper rich have unrealized wealth, whereas the middle class relies on income.

If the hyper wealthy get a 0% loan on assets to make a purchase, there is still a sale which is a taxable event

Post reply on HN