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

A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 149 posts

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#51

Post by bravura »

Is it possible for non-investors (i.e. small business owners) to avoid taxes using strategies like a "Cayman Islands mail drop"?

If so, I propose this HACK to solve the tax issue:

Create a site that disseminates information on how small businesses can avoid (not evade) taxes using these approaches that are typically only known to advanced acolytes. Evolve processes that significantly reduces the cost for avoiding taxes effectively. (I imagine that that these complicated loopholes aren't actually that complicated, just that the knowledge is rarified.)

If many people, including a large portion of the upper-middle class, reduced their tax liability, this would significantly increase the amount of attention paid to this issue.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#52

Post by forensic »

rpm4321 wrote: post #49
forensic wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you know what's chilly? the blade of the guillotine. you can either share some of your money or lose all of it.

I really wish that I had joined HN more than a month ago, just so that I could downvote you. This belongs on Reddit or Huffpo, not HN. Ironically, it's this sort of OWS mullarkey that's helping to prolong the environment of economic uncertainty that's hurting us so badly today.

I joined HN four years ago. How would YOU know what belongs on HN?

Your comment is extremely shallow and false to boot. It belongs on Rush Limbaugh, not on HN.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#54

Post by hackinthebochs »

sunsu wrote: post #22

“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 a…

Of course "efficiently" depends completely on what property you're trying to optimize for. Individuals work for themselves, government (theoretically) works for the people. It is not a given that "the people" will be more efficient for all such properties.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#55

Post by jcampbell1 »

jaggederest wrote: post #16

Hmm, if only such a thing already existed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax Although when anyone in my lowly tax bracket has to worry about it, it's pretty sad.

AMT + Deduction Cap would be the same thing effectively, assuming the deduction cap applied to everything. Right now the reason people make millions and pay no taxes is because they give generously to charities, and their investments are tax-free muni bonds. AMT still allows too many deductions to force all the top earners into paying taxes.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#56

Post by prostoalex »

nhebb wrote: post #21

> 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…

wealth == accumulated assets, but wealth != income

High-income people are frequently wealthy (outside of incomes derived through lottery winnings), but the two are not equal in their political views - those sitting on their wealth will be in favor of income taxes (since they barely have any), those who work for income will lean in favor of asset and consumption taxation (property, estate and sales taxes).

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#57

Post by arn »

neilkelty wrote: post #53

If Mr. Buffet is so concerned about the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy he should use this simple form ( https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFor... ) to set an example.

This is an absurd (yet common) response.

And if you are for a war, why don't you buy a gun and go fight?

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#58

Post by w3pm »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #54
sunsu wrote: post #22

“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 a…

Of course "efficiently" depends completely on what property you're trying to optimize for. Individuals work for themselves, government (theoretically) works for the people. It is not a given that "the people" will be more efficient for all such properties.

You misunderstand the context of efficiency. We're talking about efficiently allocating limited capital resources. This is done by 'prices.' The government by definition cannot efficiently allocate capital because there exists no market signal from capital consumers as to how the scarce resources should be best utilized. The government can only guess and spend.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#59

Post by gwright »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #47
nhangen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives the government the right to 'take it away from them?'

What is "property" other than a state-enforced claim to ownership? If the state (read: society) decides to take some back it is well within its "right" to do so, as your only claim to property is based on decree of society.

I'm guessing your not a big John Locke fan.
Post reply on HN