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

Are super-rich people just better at making money?

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 587 posts

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#191

Post by sam_lowry_ »

creakingstairs wrote: post #184
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? If banks will be taxed when selling collateral, debt costs will adjust accordingly and pass on to wealthy still.

So we get to pay 40%+ tax on our income on a yearly basis while they get to pay a mystery amount that may or may not be factored into debt costs that can also be deferred for a while? Yeah that sounds fair.

Why misery amount? The government can choose whatever tax it deems appropriate.

Also, where I live options on shares are taxed at 10%. The government does not have to wait until they are exercised to take a cut.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#192

Post by robertlagrant »

spinchange wrote: post #150
robertlagrant wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poorer people get reduced tax, rich people get more. This already happens. Many people either don't pay tax, or pay less tax than they cost. > The government doesn't need to handle capitol allocation. Then who will spend the tax money?

The working poor pay into FICA which is a greater percentage of their cash flow. They get it back upon annual tax reconciliation. The same entitlement programs nonetheless have lots of unfunded liabilities so the money has already been allocated even if it's not currently "there" -- 'The Rich' are beneficiaries of entitlement spending too.

It's a simpler situation than that. Regardless of proportions of payment, we already have a percentage of the population whose public services are paid for by someone else, either directly through income or divided tax or indirectly through higher prices from corporation tax, or more indirectly through inflationary monetary policy.

In other words: we don't need to invent taxing people with more money more. We have that. Millions of people are partly or fully paid for by others. We might want to adjust it, but we don't need to pretend we're doing something revolutionary in doing so.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#193

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

robertlagrant wrote: post #132
lelag wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Buying a second, third, fourth home? It's too easy for the ultra-rich to find loopholes in any rules. If there is a tax on homeownership, they will simply not own any home but will own some corporate entity that own the asset. See ? No secondary residence. Just an investment in a corporation that happens to home a bunch of houses.

> Just an investment in a corporation that happens to home a bunch of houses. But what's the point? If they can't get money out then it doesn't matter. The only reason houses are worth holding as an asset is public bodies stopping the creation of more housing, driving the price up. You fix that with less state interference, not more.

That's the exact opposite of what happens in the real world.

In the world the state builds and owns a lot public housing and this depresses rents and property values.

Countries stop doing this when policy is captured by neoliberal dogma. The UK is a perfect example. Housing was relatively affordable before a disastrous "right to buy" policy in the 70s, with extra enforced restrictions on state house building, destroyed the national housing market.

Now most housing is unfeasibly expensive. And hundreds of thousands of properties stand empty because they're owned solely as investments.

This is excellent for private landlords, property speculators, and older home-owners. It's an utter disaster for everyone under the age of forty because rents are unaffordable and ownerships is unimaginable.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#194

Post by sam_lowry_ »

Yizahi wrote: post #183
ls15 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me at step 1. Punishing people because their families live in what some people deem "offshore" is heartless. Also, forget modern technology like smartphones if you only can do trade with "good" countries.

I should have clarified - I don't propose to "ban" half the planet because they the not optimal with their laws or prosecution. Offshore usually means tax heavens, usually the tiny island countries with small native population and incredibly lax financial regulation or none at all. Those are the primary targets.

Start with Delaware.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#195

Post by donatj »

The whole yard sale model suffers from the fallacy that there is a predefined amount of wealth. If that were true, we’d have exactly as much wealth as our cavemen brethren did, which is clearly not the case. Every time anyone creates something more valuable than the sum of its parts, value is added to the system. A bow is far more valuable than the wood used to build it. A hammer and nails far more valuable than the raw iron in stone.

> What can the yard sale model tell us?

Literally nothing. It fails to model any part of the actual system. It’s not just lacking complexity, it’s a facetious model lacking in any real aspects of anything involved. There is no choice, no intelligence, no reason. Just random chance.

92% of the US including 86% of people without homes in this country have Internet access. We can all make incredibly informed decisions these days. Better informed decisions than ever possible by all the wealthiest royalty in human history, in literally seconds.

The author could have easily Googled the price for the exorbitant watch before they bought it. That’s entirely on them.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#196

Post by 1letterunixname »

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

Fair taxation doesn't work with regulatory capture. The US is a gross-unequal mafia colonial power. If it wasn't, campaign finance reform not only would've passed decades ago, it wouldn't be necessary. Instead, it's easy to be super rich and pay almost no taxes like Trump or Buffett.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#197

Post by jmyeet »

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

The idea of the “middle class” is propaganda. The whole point of this as well as any number of wedge social issues is to sow division and direct your anger at marginalized groups instead of the wealthy and powerful.

There are only two groups when it comes to economic status: labor and the capital-owning class. Labor is anyone who derives their income from their labor and goes all the way from the janitor to doctors and professional athletes.

Th idea of the middle class was invented to sow division with the “lower classes”. I mean look at your comment. You assert the “middle class” is getting slammed with taxes. Some (not necessarily you) imply the lower classes are somehow getting a free ride or are lazy. This is the propaganda.

We live in the wealthiest nation on earth. People without housing or food security is completely unnecessary. Charging people $1000/month for insulin, without which they would die, is only that way for corporate profits. Think about that.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#198

Post by imgabe »

chii wrote: post #186
imgabe wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the real world, there is more than one sandwich seller and they compete with each other. When was the last time you non-consensually bought a sandwich? Even homeless people on the street will sometimes refuse free food, so the idea that sandwich-sellers can set any arbitrary price they want or people will starve is just not something that happens in practice. Indeed, sandwiches are abundant and affordable.

Switch sandwiches out with internet service provider, and do you get the same story?

Yes? The vast majority of people are able to buy Internet service and it is not a significant percentage of income, even for people with a low income.

Do you know of people taking out second mortgages on their house or drowning in debt to afford Internet service?

The flip side of the equation is that if a business is to exist, it has to set a price that people are capable of paying. Yes, sometimes with supply constraints they can charge more, but charge too much and nobody will be able to buy, which means $0 revenue for the business.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#199

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #163
bawolff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a practical matter, it is very difficult to tax wealth (and even harder to do it fairly.) I don't think the issue is lack of will but lack of plan that actually works in the face of assets with unclear value and/or difficult to liquidate. And this doesn't just affect the ultra rich but people like SWE too. How much is the stock you have in the non-public company you work at really worth? SWE are probably one of th…

> As a practical matter, it is very difficult to tax wealth (and even harder to do it fairly.) Switzerland does it and it seems to work pretty well.

Can you give some details for the non initiated?
Post reply on HN