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

61–70 of 78 posts

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

#61

Post by jayski »

jevoten wrote: post #42
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd be interested in hearing from those who consider this a surprising result. To me it seems entirely expected, but with online echo-chambers being what they are I have no doubt my lack of surprise could just mean I'm in an informational cul-de-sac. What people think causes wealth inequality: Low tax rates on higher income people. What actually causes wealth inequality: Corporate mergers, consolidation, lack of an…

> When does Zuckerberg have more wealth? When Facebook has a 900 billion dollar market cap and he pays a 70% tax rate, or when Facebook has a ten billion dollar market cap and he pays a 30% tax rate? This is a bad example. All else being equal, society doesn't care if there's one 100-billionare, or 100 1-billionares, if the rest of the income- and wealth- distributions remain the same. What really drives the inequali…

Very interesting comment. Im not arguing for or against antitrust laws, just adding to the conversation.

If we had more companies competing in the same areas (5 equally sized search engines instead of google, 5 online shopping sites instead of Amazon, etc) - theres a strong possibility those 5 wouldnt be able to compete with giant international companies that arent subject to the same antitrust laws. (baidu, alibaba, etc)

So I wonder if America is better off owning these tech giants with all the harm they cause, or not having them at all.

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

#62

Post by justinzollars »

scotu wrote: post #59
justinzollars wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you are economically clueless. Reading may help you.

Rather than raising taxes and cutting spending, our leaders, including Democrats and the Fed have printed enormous amounts of money to help the poor. The average American family last year received over $50,000 in COVID related support including the Child Tax Credit, expanded SNAP benefits, Unemployment insurance and ability to wave loans including student debt and mortgages.

What is the point of tax increases when we have exactly the same result printing money?

Ironically, the primary driver of inequality, that you complain about is the FED's purchases of bonds which suppresses interest rates on the long end - and holding interest rates down on the short end. This makes stocks appear to be cheap. The stock market is correlated with the FED's balance sheet. Adjusting income taxes, will do little or nothing to address wealth inequality.

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

#63

Post by lostcolony »

nodesocket wrote: post #39
lostcolony wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is "because I personally don't see the benefit, I don't want the rich to be taxed higher", and for some reason are conflating your middle class income with that of the uberrich? I don't think anyone is suggesting "Hey, let's increase taxes on those making under a million a year". But there is no good reason that the people making a billion a year are paying the same 37% as the people making $600…

Except that's not what is being proposed (they claim their tax hikes only affects the ultra rich which is patently false). Also, I am not middle class, and I plan and have goals to continue to make more income and grow my wealth for myself and my family. Biden's plan to eliminate capital gains or increase it is bad for everybody and investment and growth. The income cap to be able to contribute to roth-ira (tax free…

Okay, so you're asking for examples of improvements to the middle class, because you don't see them...and that's coming from a place of legitimately not knowing what it's like to be middle class. Fair enough then.

The income cap to be able to contribute to a Roth IRA is indeed absurd, but has also been around for a long time; that's not a Biden thing. Biden's plan isn't to eliminate capital gains (what even...), but to tax it as income for those making over a million; while certainly debatable, that doesn't equate to "bad for everybody and investment and growth" without, you know, some sort of argument as to why (trickle down economics maybe? :P)

There is a war on wealth - really? An increase of 2.6% on dollars earned above $539,900 (higher if filing jointly). Yes, that's clearly a war on wealth; clearly, that's going to make everyone destitute.

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

#64

Post by DarylZero »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #49
jevoten wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When does Zuckerberg have more wealth? When Facebook has a 900 billion dollar market cap and he pays a 70% tax rate, or when Facebook has a ten billion dollar market cap and he pays a 30% tax rate? This is a bad example. All else being equal, society doesn't care if there's one 100-billionare, or 100 1-billionares, if the rest of the income- and wealth- distributions remain the same. What really drives the inequali…

> (This is meaningful because, if you split ownership of a company among more people, their personal wealth may be lower, but the company still acts as a unit on the market.) That's the point of the example. Zuckerberg owns a given percentage of Facebook. That isn't what increases over time. If he ever wants to spend any of the money, that only ever goes down. The reason he's a multi-billionaire is that a given perce…

They're all monopolies. Business competition itself is over control of monopolies.

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

#65

Post by DarylZero »

abeppu wrote: post #31
nightski wrote: post #15

I'm not sure using taxes as a way to combat income equality is effective either. Just because taxing the rich less allows them to make more money does not imply taxing them more allows the non-wealthy to prosper.

I think it's also key to distinguish between wanting to "combat income equality" and "allow[ing] the non-wealthy to prosper." There's that old Thatcher parliament quote responding to concerns about rising inequality, where she characterizes the left as being pleased if the poor become poorer so long as the rich fall further. I think taxes (if we plug various holes) can decrease income inequality, but the challenge is…

Lifting everyone up is mostly pointless. Absolute consumption levels are not important. Most of the things that matter are "positional."

Making the rich poorer reduces the competitive stress that everyone is under. Even if everyone else gets poorer, it's worth it.

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

#67

Post by scotu »

justinzollars wrote: post #62
scotu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you are economically clueless. Reading may help you. Rather than raising taxes and cutting spending, our leaders, including Democrats and the Fed have printed enormous amounts of money to help the poor. The average American family last year received over $50,000 in COVID related support including the Child Tax Credit, expanded SNAP benefits, Unemployment insurance and ability to wave loans including student d…

Buddy, this thread is about the long running art of "vote for me, I'll cut taxes for the rich. What you say? You are not rich? No worries, the rich will make sure those cuts help you out as well" and whoever believes it. It makes no logical sense, but people believe it. The article at the top seems to point to those cuts not trickling down.

It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the CUTS. You are going to be ok, don't be scared...

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

#68

Post by edmcnulty101 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #40
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very interesting. We just hear 'tax cuts for the rich' and just get angry about the privileged not paying their fair share. 'Tax cuts for the Rich' has become kind of a buzzword phrase, like defund the police or climate change. it sounds totally obvious on an emotional level but the devil is in the details.

It's actually worse than that because we have a tax code that actively promotes corporate expansion. If you're Walmart and you're making money and you've got a billion dollars in after-tax profit, what do you do with it? You could reinvest the money in the company. Open more Walmarts. Then you have a billion dollars to invest. You could pay it out as dividends to the shareholders. Then the shareholders, they're inves…

Interesting.

>taxing dividends

But even if the corporation reinvests that money back into the corporation instead of distributing dividends, wont shareholders have capital gains tax if they try to sell the stock after it increases in value from the reinvestment?

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

#69

Post by justinzollars »

scotu wrote: post #67
justinzollars wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are economically clueless. Reading may help you. Rather than raising taxes and cutting spending, our leaders, including Democrats and the Fed have printed enormous amounts of money to help the poor. The average American family last year received over $50,000 in COVID related support including the Child Tax Credit, expanded SNAP benefits, Unemployment insurance and ability to wave loans including student d…

Buddy, this thread is about the long running art of "vote for me, I'll cut taxes for the rich. What you say? You are not rich? No worries, the rich will make sure those cuts help you out as well" and whoever believes it. It makes no logical sense, but people believe it. The article at the top seems to point to those cuts not trickling down. It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the…

I see what is happening here. I'm talking about economics and you are talking about political slogans from the 1990's. That doesn't sound very fun - its like talking with a church person. Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so. My point is, it doesn't make a difference either way. The Fed's balance sheet drives wealth inequality. Hard stop. No one is helped or hurt by cuts or increases because we simply printed the money, with no loss or gain.

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

#70

Post by naveen99 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #17

I live in a former socialist country, with current "left" (red star in the logo) parties, who scream a lot about "tax the rich". In reality, if you look at their proposed policies: * nothing happens to the poor (since they already pay almost zero taxes) * nothing happens to the rich, because they start a company in bosnia, or delaware or panama (I have no idea how the panama papers were forgotten by the people and th…

Someone is employing you. The tax burden is effectively split between you and them, even if nominally you are paying it. You pre tax salary is an expense to your employer, which if not expensed, would likely get taxed at the highest tax rate.

Wealth is again, mostly just leverage on the working class future product. in that sense they already own atleast half of it, just defining it as income instead of wealth.

Post reply on HN