A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy • Hacker News Board

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#21

Post by nhebb » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:53 AM UTC

> I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Personally, I don't care if the wealthy pay higher taxes. In the recent election, 8/10 of the wealthiest counties in the US voted for President Obama, and his stance on tax rates was clear. If those voters are willing to pay higher taxes, I'm fine with that.

But what I really hate is the class warfare and populist messages driving fiscal policy. With the threshold at $250k, the tax hikes would still only bring in enough added revenue to cover 8 days of federal spending. And "fair share"? The top 5% pay 40% of the federal income taxes collected. In order to generate the kind of revenues that would make a significant impact on the deficit, taxes would have to go up across the board, which in turn would lead to an economic slow down.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#22

Post by sunsu » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:53 AM UTC

“Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

The problem is not that the wealthy won't invest if they are taxed at higher rates. Its that they will have LESS to reinvest with after gains are taxed. Its strictly a matter of who you believe distributes resources more efficiently: the government or the people.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#23

Post by prostoalex » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:54 AM UTC

forensic wrote: post #20

nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

Entrepreneurs only work for human beings with money. Who works for those without? It doesn't matter how inefficient government is. Government is the only entity that works for the disadvantaged. Government is also the only entity capable of addressing collective problems.

> Government is the only entity that works for the interest of the disadvantaged.

oh rly? http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_stat...

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#24

Post by ianb » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:54 AM UTC

nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

This response has become the standard (non sequitur) response to proposals for progressive taxation, but it doesn't engage at all with the argument being made.

The degree to which taxes are progressive doesn't determine the total tax collected, or the amount the government expends, it determines how that burden is applied to people. What we should really be comparing is: does an individual allocate their first $100,000 of income with any different efficiency than their second, third, or fifteenth $100k of income? If you give $1000 to a person who makes $50,000 a year, and $1000 to someone who makes $1,000,000 a year, who will allocate that money better? I think most of us would feel intuitively that the person making $50,000 would use it "better", but there's fair arguments to the contrary as well (including figuring out what "better" means). But only when you ask that question are you asking about progressive taxation, not just tax burden as a whole.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#25

Post by forensic » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:55 AM UTC

rpm4321 wrote: post #13

ballstothewalls wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources? Says who? How many wealthy individuals are sitting on piles of money right now because they are unsure of the economic climate and therefore are not going to invest? Who better than the government to take it away from them and then invest it into public infrastructure and consequently stimulate the economy?

Why do you think they are sitting on these piles of money rather than investing it? It's because of the incessant sabre-rattling from the left over the past six years about raising taxes and ramping up even more regulation. It has a chilling effect.

you know what's chilly? the blade of the guillotine.

you can either share some of your money or lose all of it.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#26

Post by mcantelon » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:55 AM UTC

nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

>Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient allocators, because they are decision makers with a vested interest in the outcome.

Not if they're burning through someone else's money. Then it's as big a shitshow as government.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#27

Post by sami36 » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:56 AM UTC

rpm4321 wrote: post #13

ballstothewalls wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources? Says who? How many wealthy individuals are sitting on piles of money right now because they are unsure of the economic climate and therefore are not going to invest? Who better than the government to take it away from them and then invest it into public infrastructure and consequently stimulate the economy?

Why do you think they are sitting on these piles of money rather than investing it? It's because of the incessant sabre-rattling from the left over the past six years about raising taxes and ramping up even more regulation. It has a chilling effect.

oh Please. What a silly excuse. How about they've cut back on investing because they've been bitten twice in the span of one decade by two bubbles (one in housing, one in tech) & they figured out it's better to be more discriminating about capital allocation. simply stated when given a choice between wealth destruction & capital preservation, the latter is more desirable. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe there aren't enough good enterprises to invest into. You're APPLE sitting on 125 Billion $ in cash, would buy Autonomy ? That kind.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#28

Post by prostoalex » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:56 AM UTC

ballstothewalls wrote: post #4

nugget wrote: post #3

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources. For every dollar put to use, many more dollars are wasted due to incompetence or fraud. California's Proposition 30 was a wake-up call for me; despite all the political advertisements to the contrary, the many billions raised for "education" went entirely to shore up the teacher's bloated pensions and benefits fund. Entrepreneurs are some of the most efficient…

Government is the least efficient allocator of resources? Says who? How many wealthy individuals are sitting on piles of money right now because they are unsure of the economic climate and therefore are not going to invest? Who better than the government to take it away from them and then invest it into public infrastructure and consequently stimulate the economy?

Oh right, investing in infrastructure == stimulus for the economy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/201...

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#29

Post by forensic » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 4:57 AM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #23

forensic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entrepreneurs only work for human beings with money. Who works for those without? It doesn't matter how inefficient government is. Government is the only entity that works for the disadvantaged. Government is also the only entity capable of addressing collective problems.

> Government is the only entity that works for the interest of the disadvantaged. oh rly? http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_stat...

If you think private charity works for the disadvantaged, you are confusing the customer with the product.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#30

Post by ianterrell » Mon, Nov 26, 2012, 5:00 AM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #12

Hey Warren, instead of an income tax, don't you think a wealth tax would be better? Oh, I thought not.

At taxable income nearing $40 MM in recent years, I'd say he's a decent candidate for speaking on income tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/warren-buffetts-inc...