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

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#141

Post by prostoalex »

tsotha wrote: post #129
prostoalex wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, definitely. Even folks who are single-issue voters realize that outside of supermajority years executive branch of government has to compromise. However, the anecdotal evidence of "stored wealth vs current income" tax is there, notice how "let's-back-tax-everybodys-income" Prop-30-happy California is also home to "dont-you-dare-to-raise-taxes-on-my-mansions" Prop 13. My original remark was to point out that wealt…

>Prop-30-happy California is also home to "dont-you-dare-to-raise-taxes-on-my-mansions" Prop 13. Mansions? Hardly. More like "Don't raise taxes on my tiny tract home through the roof based on ridiculously inflated real estate values."

If you look at the places with highest volatility, it tends to be jobs-heavy SF Bay Area and LA. A farmer in Oxnard might see his farmhouse appreciate 10% here and there, East Palo Alto and Antioch (which I think you're describing) did not experience any significant swings even during the height of real estate bubble.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#142

Post by tsotha »

prostoalex wrote: post #141
tsotha wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prop-30-happy California is also home to "dont-you-dare-to-raise-taxes-on-my-mansions" Prop 13. Mansions? Hardly. More like "Don't raise taxes on my tiny tract home through the roof based on ridiculously inflated real estate values."

If you look at the places with highest volatility, it tends to be jobs-heavy SF Bay Area and LA. A farmer in Oxnard might see his farmhouse appreciate 10% here and there, East Palo Alto and Antioch (which I think you're describing) did not experience any significant swings even during the height of real estate bubble.

I was living in Southern California when prop 13 passed by an overwhelming margin. The people who benefited the most weren't wealthy at all. Instead, they were retired people on fixed incomes who were being forced by tax increases to move from houses in which they'd lived for three or four decades.

Maybe in a state that didn't have both high sales taxes and high income taxes a cap on property taxes wouldn't make sense. But in California it does.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#143

Post by tsotha »

ianb wrote: post #105
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #93

>But what I really hate is the class warfare and populist messages driving fiscal policy. This. The thing that really gets me are the people who should know better, like Warren Buffet. You read the article and he's making straw man arguments about billionaires stuffing their cash in mattresses because their taxes are too high -- nobody is arguing that. The real problem is that taxation is economically distortionary a…

I'd kind of dismissed the idea of a consumption/sales tax as terribly regressive, but it doesn't have to be, and lately I've been wondering what the distribution might look like. To make a sales tax more progressive, you might in effect say that the first $20,000 you spend is tax-free. If you have a 10% tax, then you just give every individual $2,000 cash (and ignore that some people spend less than $20,000 – that's…

>I'd kind of dismissed the idea of a consumption/sales tax as terribly regressive, but it doesn't have to be, and lately I've been wondering what the distribution might look like.

In California the sales tax doesn't apply to clothing under a certain price or food staples. Since poor people spend a high percentage of their money on these things it's not a big burden for them.

If they want to buy booze or a big screen TV they can pay sales tax like the rest of us.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#144

Post by ruby_on_rails »

rayiner wrote: post #95
ruby_on_rails wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what nugget is getting at, is there are many government programs that are mismanaged (welfare, social security, education to some extent, and others). Who legitimately feels good that they pay taxes only to see other Americans living off of Welfare, generations unemployed, living off of welfare (which btw, I consider to be fraud). People that live on welfare (no, not people who use the program as it was inten…

Broken by what measure? Relative to what? Is the government mismanaged compared to say Google? The federal agency I worked for was a much tighter-run ship than the startup I worked for, or the medium-sized tech company I worked for. I'd wager the federal government, or at least most of it, is better-run than most small and medium sized businesses in the US. The caliber of people in most of the agencies is just extrem…

I gave you +1 for middlebrow dismissal, you ignored the point I made and simply compared government to the private sector. I don't care how great the private sector manages their business, that is not the topic of discussion. Maybe you should stop wearing your ass as a hat and make a relevant comparison like between our governments and other governments, or between our govt today and our govt 20 years. Comparing apples and oranges isn't an argument. Still, plus 1 for Middlebrow dismissal.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#146

Post by tsotha »

ianterrell wrote: post #30
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...

Yes, well, with 1000x that in assets I'd say he's an even better candidate for a wealth tax.

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#147

Post by [deleted] »

gwright wrote: post #136
MaysonL wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the taxes, go somewhere else, or into the black market.

Really? You think that tax policy is some verboten topic that is outside the scope of public debate and that anyone who dares to question the 'government' should 'leave' (or become a criminal)?

[deleted]

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#148

Post by forensic »

gyardley wrote: post #127
forensic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to say you're working FOR the disadvantaged. They aren't directing your activity and they have no power in the matter. Government actually responds to the desires of the disadvantaged so the difference is infinite. Volunteer organizations only serve a very, very narrow sliver of the disadvantaged, and they usually don't work to eradicate the disadvantaged but rather to exploit them to perpetuate the…

Your comment is bizarre. First, if government has been responding to the desires of the disadvantaged all along, it would seem that a good portion of the poor and disadvantaged want to stay poor and disadvantaged. I don't believe that's the case - so either the government hasn't been responding to the desires of the disadvantaged or the government has been rather ineffective at it. Second, your description of a volun…

Perhaps, when I say something quite abstract, I'm MAKING A POINT instead of, you know, ignorant of very mundane facts like what you are blabbing.

God the literalism in the software industry is just pathetic. It's like all you ever read is technical documentation.

I'm imagining you reading Camus and then trying to educate him on the dictionary definition of "absurd"

"Excuse me sir, but let me educate you about this extremely fucking obvious fact that everyone already knows while I completely miss your point because I'm dense as lead"

Re: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

#149

Post by forensic »

brg wrote: post #119
forensic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have confused the customer with the product.

That statement rings false. The product of doctor's without borders is better health for the disadvantaged. The product of the red cross disaster relief is comfort and care in times of distress. The EAPN main goal is to elevate the disadvantaged above their current situation and prevent the cycle of poverty.

This doesn't conform with standard HN understandings of what it means to be a customer and what it means to be a product.
Post reply on HN