Live data from Hacker News

Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

lse.ac.uk

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's not one lie, it's a pack of lies, trotted out every time congress needs to justify another capital gains tax cut or rationalize why the next tax hike needs to target work not wealth.

When is the last time either of those things (capital gains rate cuts, tax hikes on the lower 90% of income earners) happened? I think it’s been decades by now.

OBBB Opportunity Zones? Bonus depreciation? If you are unfamiliar with these or their applications to tax avoidance, you are outing yourself as a wagie running defense for your economic betters.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#42
This is basically what happened in Orbán's 16 years in Hungary. He gave indirect tax cuts for the rich, or just generally everyone who is not living pay check to pay check (by hungarian standards it means you are rich). So for example installing solar panels came with a tax writeoff but the whole thing was setup that it only benefit who already have had enough money to install a full brand new solar panel system. So it didn't help at all those who are really in need. Same happened with EV cars. If you already have money for a brand new EV car you got it cheaper. For the rest? Good luck. Mind you this is eastern Europe where everyone is driving +15 year old diesels from Germany. The rich got richer.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is the last time either of those things (capital gains rate cuts, tax hikes on the lower 90% of income earners) happened? I think it’s been decades by now.

OBBB Opportunity Zones? Bonus depreciation? If you are unfamiliar with these or their applications to tax avoidance, you are outing yourself as a wagie running defense for your economic betters.

Sorry, which of those are capital gains rate cuts or tax hikes on workers?

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#44

The thing I don't like about this is that it treats trickle-down economics as if it's something that needs to be debunked. Trickle-down economics has never been a real economic policy, and never been seriously advocated by federal policy-makers. It is an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics. The policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible, but it seems peopl…

I always like to approach this conversation with a question:

Should business that actually do create jobs in practice get bigger tax breaks?

For example, if I by some miracle create a 1 man company that makes $100 million / year profit and somebody else creates a company that makes $100 million / year profit but has 2,000 employees...should the two companies be taxed differently?

Walmart employees 1.6 million people in the US. 68% are full time. Average salaries range from $18.25 / hr (field associate) to $27 / hr (supply chain). Median $30,520 across all US employees. 156,000 employees are estimated to be enrolled in Medicaid (9.4%).

Amazon employees 1.1 million. $23 / hour average for field / fulfillment. Median $53,211 across all US employees. 123,000 employees are estimated to be enrolled in Medicaid (11.7%).

Both offer pretty extensive career development, training and tuition assistance programs.

Profit per employee:

- Walmart $10,800 / employee (1.6 million employees)

- Amazon $50,000 / employee (1.1 million employees)

By comparison:

- AppLovin $3.7 million / employee (898 employees)

- NVIDIA $2.86 million / employee (42,000 employees)

So what if we actually had a tax strategy that literally was aimed at "job creators" rather than "capital gains"? What would that look like?

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do %s/trickle-down/supply-side/g , then, if it's the term that's bothering you. Doesn't "debunking" trickle-down economics then, by extension, debunk supply-side economics? I'm not clear on the meaningful difference

I don't know regex, but to be clear: trickle-down economics and supply-side economics are very different things. I don't blame you for conflating them since they are intentionally very confusing. One is a policy and the other is basically the name of a common criticism for that policy. For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it'…

You just said trick-down wasn't a real thing so how can you say it's different from supply-side?

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#46
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, turns out the trickle is just piss.

the rising tide that's supposed to lift all boats? also piss.

Whole life had the don't piss in water anxiety, only to realize that everyone does it and I'm swimming in it.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#48

The thing I don't like about this is that it treats trickle-down economics as if it's something that needs to be debunked. Trickle-down economics has never been a real economic policy, and never been seriously advocated by federal policy-makers. It is an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics. The policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible, but it seems peopl…

The actual paper never uses the phrase trickle-down economics and just covers how tax cuts for the rich don't improve the economy but does increase income inequality

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#49
Take the inverse stance: take a country that taxes its citizens to death, like France or Belgium. How are they doing? Very badly.

France is concerned that the IMF main jump in and take things under control because the government's public deficit is out of control. With a GDP of about $3.6 trillion (american trillion, not french) and public spending representing, officially, 57.2% of those $3.6 trillion, that's a cool $2 trillion spent, yearly, by the state. This is where wealth goes to die.

If you were to seize, just fully seize (and consider it's liquid, which it is not), the wealth of all the billionaires in France (there aren't even 50 of them) you'd end up with $500 billion.

So if you were to just take all the wealth from all the french billionaires, you'd only pay a quarter (!) of the budget of the french state. For one year.

And that's it. 25% for a year.

Another way to see it: the french public deficit is more than $100 billion, yearly. If you were to seize the wealth of all french billionaires, you'd only have enough money to prevent the public debt from growing (which has to be at around 140% by now) for five years.

I'm not listening to talks about "taxing the rich" anymore until that caste called politicians stops spending money it doesn't have, enslaving future generations that shall be taxed to death to pay the insane public debt their governments are creating.

Wanna talk about what's happening to the city of Brussels (Belgium), my native city? 40% right at the poverty line. Immense deficit. Conditions of living going down the drain. First political party in the poll is now the PTB, a full on communist party (and communist in the EU have noticed that, at the moment, they could get the votes of islamists, so strangely enough in a "the enemy of my enemy of my friend" way, communists in countries like France and Belgium happen to be very welcoming to religious extremism [in France the communist party literally has been forced, when it created a coalition with others party at the left, to sign a paper saying it condemned islamism terrorism for they've been so cosy with the idea that it really wasn't clear at all that they actually were against islamist terrorism]).

And you want to get me started on that wonderful discovery the left made recently: that by importing millions of poor migrants and then giving them the right to vote, by a very surprising coincidence these poor imported migrants happened to not vote for the right?

How... Convenient?

Several countries are discovering that: "you eventually end up of the money of others" and "when the rich becomes poor, the poor dies".

The one thing that really irks me in this is the full-on hypocrites I know who believe that anyone richer than them should be taxed to death: to them "trickle down economics" do not work but that they live a middle-class lifestyle more preposterous than 99% of the planet doesn't bother them. They want lower taxes but not for those richer than they are.

I cannot understand that mindset.

I hate the Zuck: really, screw that guy and his faked 3D legless avatar demo for his dystopian VR world (how did that one turn out btw? As well as the Meta AI race?) and screw his PHP+JavaScript "punch the monkey" abusive ad world. Just fuck it. But I don't give a single crap in the world that he's got two $250 million Yacht or whatever they cost and however many he's got.

Good. For. Him.

I'd rather be poor and free than live under communism. And doubly so if we're talking about living in a society dictated both by religious intolerance and communism (which is where several countries are headed).

And if you want to "help the poor", go give all your money, open your house/appartment to pooor migrants and give me a fucking break.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#50

The scientists who worked for the cigarette companies couldn't find a link to cancer. Economists who work in academia can't find working economic policies for the same reason. Private sector economists on the other hand...actually place bets and get rewarded or punished for being wrong. Not shockingly, they have very different opinions from the academic economists. PS And you wonder why Mississippi is richer than the…

every single time taxes for the wealthy were cut, it was argued that the laffler curve would make up for the loss in federal tax receipts, thus leaving us with the same level of services and a larger economy.

every single time its resulted in lower tax intake compensated with more deficit spending.

Post reply on HN