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

Just Be Rich (2021)

keenen.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 320 posts

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#271

Post by carlob »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #259
carlob wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is patently false for the only case I have data on. The wealth tax in France had quadrupled its collections in a time where the French GDP had doubled, and all this was without an exit tax. Unfortunately Macron got rid of it a few years ago and replaced it with something that only applies to real estate.

It's kind of amazing when people talk about a tax failing as a bad thing. This leads me to believe that most people want taxes on wealth for punishment and no other reason.

I want wealth taxes for redistribution mostly. So yeah.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#272

Post by throwaway22032 »

abenga wrote: post #256
throwaway22032 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I had previously been lazy but here's a proper response. I'm confused because to me, everything you have posted backs up the idea that these things are in fact actions and not luck based. Country of residence is not luck based, it's either pre-determined or chosen by parents. 27% self made is huge, I would have expected it to be lower. Parental income having an effect on children's is also not an example of…

Like you said, you have a different definition of luck. Others seem to say "factors that you did not choose, and do not have the ability to change" are luck. > Country of residence is not luck based, it's either pre-determined or chosen by parents. So you have very little to do with it; you can probably choose this after you finish school, but this is dependent on the place you would like to emigrate to letting you i…

I just think this is a basic logical error.

39 year old me built a shed.

40 year old me then has a shed.

40 year old me did not influence or choose 39 year old me.

But 40 year old me does not have a shed due to luck.

It was causative.

Your parents and your past decisions are not luck based.

If you want to call that luck, then you need a different word for actual luck such as chance encounters, lottery wins, unexpected windfalls etc, because otherwise we are just misinterpreting each other.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#273

Post by abenga »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #272
abenga wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you said, you have a different definition of luck. Others seem to say "factors that you did not choose, and do not have the ability to change" are luck. > Country of residence is not luck based, it's either pre-determined or chosen by parents. So you have very little to do with it; you can probably choose this after you finish school, but this is dependent on the place you would like to emigrate to letting you i…

I just think this is a basic logical error. 39 year old me built a shed. 40 year old me then has a shed. 40 year old me did not influence or choose 39 year old me. But 40 year old me does not have a shed due to luck. It was causative. Your parents and your past decisions are not luck based. If you want to call that luck, then you need a different word for actual luck such as chance encounters, lottery wins, unexpecte…

If you didn't choose it, do it, and cannot change it, it's not up to you. Whatever parents n-1 year old you had, or nationality they had, are the same ones n year old you have. If they are abusive, or in war, you are screwed. Build a shed or not. Of course there are things you can do to improve your and your children's lives (and you should), but there are irreversible handicaps you can have through no choice or action of yours.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#274

Post by AnimalMuppet »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #272
abenga wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you said, you have a different definition of luck. Others seem to say "factors that you did not choose, and do not have the ability to change" are luck. > Country of residence is not luck based, it's either pre-determined or chosen by parents. So you have very little to do with it; you can probably choose this after you finish school, but this is dependent on the place you would like to emigrate to letting you i…

I just think this is a basic logical error. 39 year old me built a shed. 40 year old me then has a shed. 40 year old me did not influence or choose 39 year old me. But 40 year old me does not have a shed due to luck. It was causative. Your parents and your past decisions are not luck based. If you want to call that luck, then you need a different word for actual luck such as chance encounters, lottery wins, unexpecte…

Define "luck". That's what this whole disagreement hinges on. You're using a different definition of luck.

Sure, I reap the fruits of my past decisions, like the shed. More to the point, I reap the fruits of my parents' decisions. Is that luck?

It's not luck from the perspective of actions having consequences, and parents doing things that help their children.

It is luck from the perspective of "you didn't pick your parents", or from the "if you were going to be born to someone random, where and when would you want to be born?" perspective.

So you and abenga are saying "yes it is!" "no it's not" about the same set of facts, because you're running different definitions of what is or is not luck.

Arguments about the definitions of words are really uninteresting. What you and abenga are saying boils down to "yes, actions have consequences, and better actions lead to better consequences, both for yourself and your descendents, but no, you didn't select the parents, country, or time you were born to".

Apart from the definition of "luck", do either of you actually disagree with either side of that? If so, with what part, and why?

And, if you do agree with it, what conclusions do you draw?

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#275

Post by danaris »

nickpp wrote: post #240
pants2 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax. That seems obvious to me. Someone working for a paycheck should pay a smaller tax rate than someone who randomly bought NVDA stock a few years ago and watched the number go up.

> capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax Then you would in effect discourage investing. Investing, which creates jobs and promotes innovation. Is as simple as that.

Then let's do something to encourage actually investing—putting money into a company, not into the stock market.

If I buy shares of, say, APPL today, Apple Inc. doesn't actually get that money. The person who owned those shares before does. Even if I bought up $2B worth of shares, Apple would see none of that money. It is not actually invested in the company in any way.

If you want to encourage investing, then you need to find a way to advantage shares being sold directly by the company. (And, frankly, strongly discourage stock buybacks, because that's literally the opposite of investing, and generally only benefits the wealthiest shareholders.)

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#276

Post by danaris »

arrosenberg wrote: post #216
danaris wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "moving the goalposts", and however good your underlying point about Amazon's perfidy might be, it does nothing but make you look like you're wrong and you know it. You were wrong about the Rust Belt, and it's OK to admit that and move on.

Seems more likely you don’t process sarcasm well.

"Satire requires a clarity of purpose and target, lest it be mistaken for, and contribute to, that which it intends to criticize."

To put it another way: From Poe's Law[0], we know that no matter how outlandish a position you take sarcastically in a forum like this, there's nearly guaranteed to be people who will be taking such a position in full sincerity. If you don't clearly indicate in some way that you're being sarcastic, you're going to be mistaken for the real asshole, because your tone of voice does not come across in plain text.

Next time, just put a /s and save everyone the trouble, hmm?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#277

Post by ryandrake »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #268
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is that the land can be worth over $13M, but the income from farming it is low, so the people living on the land are poor. Then the taxes against the $13M are beyond what the family can pay, so they loose the land. Or the land gets whittled down as parts are sold off to pay the taxes on the rest. The land is worth way more than the income from farming it.

100% I come from a family of farmers. The land is worth a lot but also has large notes on them. If you see the way these farmers live, NOBODY would call them rich. They never sell and the land gets passed from generation to generation. All the income from farming goes back into the farm (notes, taxes, supplies, maintenance).

Huh... I must be missing some huge bit of information, then.

Using my example, how is the business worth $14M if it's not making, say, $1M a year? If it's not making any money, wouldn't the value be much less? Maybe the current business value is very low, but the land is worth $14M because someone else could make more money with it. In that case, the wisest decision would be to sell it, use the proceeds to pay off the taxes and whatever liens are hanging around, and then invest the balance more productively. Say you have $10M left over after settling taxes and debts. That's still a huge windfall, and anyone living on that farm would never be poor again. Invested wisely, and that family never works a day in their life again. Hell, a risk-free 30 year US Treasury bond is paying in the neighborhood of 4.5% now. That windfall could be turned into a risk-free salary of $450,000/yr, with zero investing skills.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#278

Post by dmoy »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #257
pants2 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, capital gains tax should be much higher than income tax. That seems obvious to me. Someone working for a paycheck should pay a smaller tax rate than someone who randomly bought NVDA stock a few years ago and watched the number go up.

Maybe, but then let me capture my long and short term gains together to offset gains. It's crazy that if I have a $5k loss in year one, I can't completely offset it in year 2 if I have a 5k gain. Now I can only use 3k going forward forever.

> Now I can only use 3k going forward forever.

Wait did they change the carry forward rules?

At least the way it used to work was:

* Year 1 - 50k loss, 3k offset of ordinary income 47k carry forward

* Year 2 - 60k gain, 47k zeroed out from last year's carry forward, 13k is taxed

Is that not still the case?

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#279

Post by ryandrake »

WalterBright wrote: post #190
ryandrake wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so make it retroactive on the day the law was passed. Laws are words written on paper, it's not like dark wizardry. These kinds of objections always come up. "But, rich people are oh so clever, and they will exploit loopholes in any law that gets written!" Well, write stronger laws. Don't include exceptions. Lawmakers need to think more than 5 minutes about what kinds of options/resources are available to people,…

> OK, so make it retroactive on the day the law was passed Ex post facto laws are illegal. Even so, you might get the taxes once, before they leave. That's not a plan for a future.

First up, ex post facto clauses have been interpreted as applying to criminal laws only. AFAIK there exists no constitutional bar to retroactive tax legislation. The same may be true for states.

And, It's not like they're all going to leave. Sure, a few grumpy ideologues like Musk will Go Galt and move away, but it's not like everyone subject to the tax is going to suddenly leave. People have been predicting the demise of California, New York, and so on forever, yet somehow, they have not all moved to Texas yet, and we still have plenty of high-earning taxpayers here. Maybe they like clean air and a functioning power grid, I don't know.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#280

Post by danaris »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #260
immibis wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in America, Republicans made it as difficult as possible with the intention of you hating it. If you live in any other country, you simply get less money than you would have otherwise.

I lived in London and left after paying 50%+ income on taxes. I also had to get private healthcare because I couldn't wait weeks to see a doctor. So no, it's not just US Republicans, please stop.

The Tories are very similar in their outlook and practices in many ways.
Post reply on HN