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

Who died and left the US $7B?

sherwood.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 589 posts

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#231

Post by _bin_ »

witchammer wrote: post #225
_bin_ wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just arbitrarily set the status quo that way, can't just sneak a premise that the state has default a right to collect a piece of arbitrary appreciation on an asset (as all assets are used for speculation) when the owner hasn't actually gotten cash from that, and that any government that doesn't tax that is just cutting someone a break on something rightfully owed. The state of nature is no tax, and as it's…

> The state of nature is no tax > You don't get to argue from the point that your preferred taxation regime is simply how things should be Those two statements seem mildly contradictory.

Not really. Trace the course of history and the natural state of man is much closer to what Hobbes described. In the wild, homo sapiens doesn't have a taxation system. As we built up civilizations, we created taxes as I described. And neither am I arguing for my preference to stick with how we mostly run our taxation regime (tax value when moved, not value at rest) without some justification for it.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#232

Post by _bin_ »

Log_out_ wrote: post #220
_bin_ wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just arbitrarily set the status quo that way, can't just sneak a premise that the state has default a right to collect a piece of arbitrary appreciation on an asset (as all assets are used for speculation) when the owner hasn't actually gotten cash from that, and that any government that doesn't tax that is just cutting someone a break on something rightfully owed. The state of nature is no tax, and as it's…

yes, we can. the whole premise of a democracy is that every law is a solid majority away from being turned over.one of the reasons big money is inherent anti-democratic.

Okay, I don't actually believe in that form of democracy. Not all things that are legal are good, therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do. I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. And no, that is not the premise of every system that incorporates democracy as an element, it's the premise of an absolute democracy.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#233

Post by asne11 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #217
_bin_ wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Family farms are a good example but there are still plenty of others like a family business. I wouldn't care to see an increasing fraction of assets fall into institutional ownership simply because people are taxed out of owning them intergenerationally. There's a massive difference between "the government will tax you for part of your value" and "the government will, over a sufficient time, tax you entirely out of e…

Help me understand why a family farm would have such an issue if the owner-operator dies, but Walmart didn't when Sam Walton died? Is it an issue of incorporation/business structure?

Suppose you're a young 20 something with maybe $300 to your name. Daddy gets struck by farming equipment and dies. Now you have two choices:

1. Continue operations of the family farm, assuming you can come up with the money to cover taxes.

2. Sell the farm to Big Farm, Inc., get a $5M check and forget about it, regardless of the consequences that means to your customers.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#234

Post by kelseyfrog »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #209
willcipriano wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of modern monetary theory is taxing the newly printed money and putting it towards (wasteful) government programs to "burn it" in a sense. Predictably, politicians who support MMT only did the printing part and skipped that bit once inflation started.

How does that burn the money? If the government is spending the money, it's going to federal employees and purchasing good and services from the general economy.

It helps to conceptualize the circuit of money as it flows from government(G) to the private sector(P) back to the government as G-P-G. The outlays(G-P) and receipts(P-G) can both be increased or decreased to affect aggregate demand. MMT's view is that inflation can be a result of aggregate demand outstripping economic capacity, though not the only one. Supply-side constraints, resource shortages, or structural bottlenecks can also lead to inflation.

MMT emphasizes that taxation (P-G) is not necessary to "fund" government spending. Instead, taxation primarily serves to control inflation and create a demand for the currency. Taxation creates a value for the currency since taxes are payable only in the government's currency.

When we hold the P-G-P view of government spending, we assume it operates like a household - that a government has to collect taxes before spending and this is viewed by MMTheorists as an antiquated perspective. The misconceptions of "The government as a household" were based on the gold standard or fixed exchange rate systems, which since 1971 no longer apply.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#235

Post by consp »

_bin_ wrote: post #231
witchammer wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state of nature is no tax > You don't get to argue from the point that your preferred taxation regime is simply how things should be Those two statements seem mildly contradictory.

Not really. Trace the course of history and the natural state of man is much closer to what Hobbes described. In the wild, homo sapiens doesn't have a taxation system. As we built up civilizations, we created taxes as I described. And neither am I arguing for my preference to stick with how we mostly run our taxation regime (tax value when moved, not value at rest) without some justification for it.

No tax in the wild? In my view, sure there was: you get water and share it, the other guy hunts and shares it. The fact no centralised system existed does not mean no tax on the community was levied in some way.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#236

Post by [deleted] »

disillusioned wrote: post #34

One of the funny takeaways here is: there are so many more billionaires out there, who spend considerable effort to remain off these lists and otherwise anonymous. I work with one, and he's not on ANY of the Forbes or Bloomberg lists, though articles about his projects and investments obviously make the news. That's, as the article alludes to, the funny thing about private equity: it does a very good job _staying_ pr…

[deleted]

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#237

Post by consp »

asne11 wrote: post #233
kelseyfrog wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand why a family farm would have such an issue if the owner-operator dies, but Walmart didn't when Sam Walton died? Is it an issue of incorporation/business structure?

Suppose you're a young 20 something with maybe $300 to your name. Daddy gets struck by farming equipment and dies. Now you have two choices: 1. Continue operations of the family farm, assuming you can come up with the money to cover taxes. 2. Sell the farm to Big Farm, Inc., get a $5M check and forget about it, regardless of the consequences that means to your customers.

The taxes are less than buying the farm outright so it would just be a very cheap buyout. I do not see the problem, you can get finance for that in civilized nations. It's not easy but neither is buying a farm normally.

Inheritance, even with normal tax, is a cheap way of keeping money in the family and keeping rich people rich. It is not based on merit, capabilities or need and serves no purpose in a society based on improving the lives of the entire population. (Which you can argue is not what [country with low inheritance tax] is)

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#238

Post by [deleted] »

FredPret wrote: post #75
mxkopy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make just about anything a slippery slope if you wanted to - “they’re putting limits on guns, what’s next, kitchen knives?” Morally you should probably be spending more time figuring out how to get everyone their first car instead of worrying about your legal rights in owning your second.

Why yes, there are countries with limits on kitchen knives. And if your focus is on providing that first car, then the system currently doing that en masse for billions of previously-poor people is called “capitalism” and your moral imperative is to speed it up, not slow it down.

[deleted]

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#239

Post by lazide »

eastbound wrote: post #230
lazide wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an entirely ridiculous argument. Who actually ‘writes the check’ is actually important in a discussion about who writes the check , despite the fungibility of money. Renters don’t pay the owners property taxes in the US, even if they pay rent. Full stop. Why this matters is because in some cases, owners can end up ‘under water’ with even rent not covering property taxes in the US. In other places, that may no…

No, really, it has been studied, taxes affects both supply and demand. It’s one of the first chapters of any microeconomics book.

you might want to actually read my comment. the details matter.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#240

Post by Auracle »

amatecha wrote: post #49
mxkopy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make just about anything a slippery slope if you wanted to - “they’re putting limits on guns, what’s next, kitchen knives?” Morally you should probably be spending more time figuring out how to get everyone their first car instead of worrying about your legal rights in owning your second.

Right? What's with all the volunteer billionaire-wealth advocates?

Just because something won’t affect people doesn’t mean they can’t be allowed to think it’s morally wrong.
Post reply on HN