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

The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#161

Post by robocat »

Patxitxi wrote: post #147
medvezhenok wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting that what we [should] optimize for is the general welfare of the population (based on human moral code). Taxes are just one way to redistribute [some] gains that are lopsidedly awarded by the market, since in certain cases we do not want winner-take-all behavior (but instead to optimize the welfare of the many). This is a middle ground between communism and capitalism and seems to be what works best…

Forget the moral code... how long would this rich people last without the government protecting them? Should we have a free for all? That's the way you start the revolution and the rich loose their heads...

Be careful what you wish for: https://ageofrevolutions.com/2017/06/26/land-and-liberation-...

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#162

Post by pmoriarty »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #35
pavlov wrote: post #6

Meanwhile the estate tax in the US only applies to inheritances larger than $12.9 million. People with that kind of wealth also know how to start planning early to avoid the tax, so the tax is practically ineffectual. A fairer inheritance tax could go a long way to fixing the worsening wealth gap in America.

What’s the argument FOR an inheritance tax, when it comes to fairness? The person who’s passsing the money down already paid tax on the money, whether income tax or capital gains tax. The government already got a hefty chunk of that earned money. Why should it be taxed again? Especially when we see how inefficient the government is at spending money for the public good.

If you've got a better idea for how we can keep a tiny minority from absolutely dominating the rest of society, If like to hear it.

I really don't get why so many people are so eager to empower a class of people that can make the rest of us do their bidding.

It shouldn't matter how many websites, shoe stores, or or newspapers they or their ancestors make, that shouldn't make them the boss of us.

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#163

Post by pmoriarty »

roenxi wrote: post #53
bluedevil2k wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the argument FOR an inheritance tax, when it comes to fairness? The person who’s passsing the money down already paid tax on the money, whether income tax or capital gains tax. The government already got a hefty chunk of that earned money. Why should it be taxed again? Especially when we see how inefficient the government is at spending money for the public good.

Speaking in extreme generalities, the people in favour of taxes believe that there is only a tenuous link between improving society and getting paid money. That the state's view of what would be an improvement is superior to the view of wealthy individuals. Anyone being wealthy is somewhat suspect because they have claim on resources and the pro-tax types don't believe they can use those resource more effectively tha…

Taxed money could simply be passed on to the population in equal amounts. Then each individual could decide what to spend it on.

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#164

Post by [deleted] »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #137
notacoward wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "double taxation" argument has nothing to do with fairness. It's rules lawyering, not ethical reasoning. It also ignores the fact that money is usually taxed when it changes hands - income tax, sales tax, etc. Yes, again and again and again. The one notable exception - which the article even mentions - is certain kinds of inheritance. Thanks to the basis step-up, a lot of wealth has evaded the kind of taxation t…

> It also ignores the fact that money is usually taxed when it changes hands - income tax, sales tax, etc. I don't think they're "ignoring the fact". I think they're arguing that it's wrong. Those aren't the same thing.

[deleted]

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#165

Post by RickJWagner »

We don't need to hyper-focus on the inequality in bank accounts. We need to look at the difference in lives.

Is the zillionaire's iPhone any better than the one owned by the guy working at the grocery store? Is a Lucid that much better than a Corolla? How much more liveable is the mansion than an apartment?

Society as a whole has made great strides in making the great masses in the middle more comfortable, safer, and more long-lived.

The next big gains will come when we start educating people about how to handle money.

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#166

Post by jfengel »

mcntsh wrote: post #69
vel0city wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The person who’s passsing the money down already paid tax on the money Why should I pay sales tax? I already paid tax on the money as income tax. Why should I pay income tax on that money? That money was already taxed through payroll taxes before the employer paid me. Why should the employer pay payroll taxes on that money? They already paid income taxes on it. Why should companies pay income taxes on that money? T…

For me, this comment just highlights how egregious taxation already is.

The egregious-ness of taxation is seen only by the amount of money spent, not in the fashion in which it's collected. If you want lower taxes, you have to specify what things you're going to cut. (And you have to be honest about it: singling out tiny programs you disagree with doesn't even begin to cover it.)

All taxation is "double taxation". There's only a finite amount of money in the system. It just moves around. The government pays for its spending by taking a bit of it every time it moves. There's no single fair way to do that; everybody will always say that it should fall on somebody else.

Eliminating "double taxation" isn't a reasonable or useful goal. To cut taxes, you have to cut spending. And "cut spending on everybody but my priorities" isn't a useful way to think about that.

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#167

Post by Turing_Machine »

tylerhou wrote: post #140
Turing_Machine wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "fair" that I'm only slightly above average height and will therefor never be an NBA star. It's not "fair" that I'm a competent musician at best -- far, far below professional level. Are you arguing that no one should be allowed to be a pro basketball player or musician? You should go read a story called Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

Yes, it isn't fair that some people are taller than others, or more talented. The way we account for that is is not by outlawing behaviors. Rather, we levy progressive income taxes so that people who are lucky can help people who are less lucky. The most talented basketball players pay a large income tax that helps provide services to those who were not born lucky. I don't see why estate taxes are any different. It i…

Sorry, you're dodging. Most professional musicians (and other artists) are far from wealthy. Should they have to pay high taxes as well, for "fairness"?

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#168

Post by mooreds »

jfengel wrote: post #166
mcntsh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, this comment just highlights how egregious taxation already is.

The egregious-ness of taxation is seen only by the amount of money spent, not in the fashion in which it's collected. If you want lower taxes, you have to specify what things you're going to cut. (And you have to be honest about it: singling out tiny programs you disagree with doesn't even begin to cover it.) All taxation is "double taxation". There's only a finite amount of money in the system. It just moves around.…

Came here to say this. Everyone wants the services taxes provide, no one wants to pay taxes.

> If you want lower taxes, you have to specify what things you're going to cut. (And you have to be honest about it: singling out tiny programs you disagree with doesn't even begin to cover it.)

I read an article saying that if the US federal government wants to cut the deficit to zero with no tax increases and avoid touching the entitlement programs (social security, medicare), they need to cut 70% of every other program. If you cut it evenly, it's 27%. 27%! Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/06/upshot/balanc...

If you want to cut spending, bring on the detailed proposals.

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#169

Post by Turing_Machine »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #167
tylerhou wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it isn't fair that some people are taller than others, or more talented. The way we account for that is is not by outlawing behaviors. Rather, we levy progressive income taxes so that people who are lucky can help people who are less lucky. The most talented basketball players pay a large income tax that helps provide services to those who were not born lucky. I don't see why estate taxes are any different. It i…

Sorry, you're dodging. Most professional musicians (and other artists) are far from wealthy. Should they have to pay high taxes as well, for "fairness"?

Maybe instead we could, e.g., force streaming services to play an equal number of songs from every musician (or imagined musician), regardless of talent. Want to listen to Bach? Okay, but you have to listen to five hundred songs from untalented randos before hearing a Bach piece.

That would be "fair", yes?

Re: The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, with Familiar (Rich) Winners

#170

Post by tylerhou »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #169
Turing_Machine wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you're dodging. Most professional musicians (and other artists) are far from wealthy. Should they have to pay high taxes as well, for "fairness"?

Maybe instead we could, e.g., force streaming services to play an equal number of songs from every musician (or imagined musician), regardless of talent. Want to listen to Bach? Okay, but you have to listen to five hundred songs from untalented randos before hearing a Bach piece. That would be "fair", yes?

You’re strawmanning me. It would be better to let people stream songs by whatever artist they want. Then the fair thing to do is to levy progressively higher taxes on more popular/profitable artists to redistribute money to those who were not born as talented or motivated.
Post reply on HN