Live data from Hacker News

How to convert between wealth and income tax

paulgraham.com

271–280 of 727 posts

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers, levied on people who have a lot more money and in some cases don't do anything resembling work. It's trivially true that 1% wealth taxes represent something in the region of a fifth of the average annual return on wealth, it's rather less convincing when it's suggested that…

> There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives If the US and the EU introduced a wealth tax then it would be relatively difficult for the capital flight fears to materialise. But yeah, the trouble with wealth taxes is that wealth (i.e. capital) is mobile. Which is why land and property taxes are probably the most effective way of taxing wealth.

Most of us would not prefer to follow the EU into irrelevancy. If they were the model for how we should be running things how come they are not the ones running the show on innovation?

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#272
post #226
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in theory. In practice it’s not equivalent at all because once you reach a certain (very high) level of wealth, there’s the “buy, borrow, die” strategy that avoids realizing most of your capital gains. I’ve also heard of proposals to tax asset-backed loans above a certain threshold, which is aimed at the “borrow” part of the strategy. But the concern there is that the super wealthy may quickly find a different s…

> because once you reach a certain (very high) level of wealth, there’s the “buy, borrow, die” strategy that avoids realizing most of your capital gains If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that . Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death. And, if they want, only apply it to estates over some X threshold in size. Performing the taxation at t…

>If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that. Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death.

That already exists. The rate is 40% of the asset value.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#273
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since it is economic fact rather than self-serving fiction [...] You deride the weak justification for trickle down economics, then proceed to link wtfhappenedin1971.com, a site that tries to argue for the reintroduction of the gold standard through a gish-gallop of random charts?

The gap between productivity and wages is striking, isn't it? I'm not perfectly aligned with gold bug politics. Their faith in the Kindleberger world is misplaced and their tax aversion can make them useful to my opponents, but at the same time they tend to take the Cantillon Pump and Balance of Payments mechanisms seriously while my traditional allies do not. No, I don't mind borrowing their charts. Why? Do you have…

>The gap between productivity and wages is striking, isn't it?

It's not. The (in)famous epi.org is flawed for all sorts of reasons, from excluding noproduction/supervisory workers (the highest compensated ones!), to excluding non-wage compensation (eg. benefits), to different deflators for compensation vs productivity. If you adjust for all of that, the chart is unremarkable.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/gr...

That incidentally, is the exact problem with the site. It presents a barrage of charts, without regard to relevance or rigor, and tries to persuade through sheer volume alone. Yet, if you scrutinize any of them, it quickly falls apart. That's probably why the site doesn't even bother justifying the charts, or even state the thesis, for that matter.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#274
post #23

I think the assumption that we're looking for an equivalence here is fundamentally flawed and with it the entire post. For most people income is tied to selling their time. It doesn't scale at all. Unless the income comes from wealth. The societal problem here is a group with self-reinforcing run-away levels of wealth. And to counter that you do need something more extreme than this nonsensical equivalency of income…

I'm not sure how there is a societal problem with "run-away levels of wealth".

We have societal problems around food costs, housing costs, healthcare costs, &c; but people with extreme wealth are not bidding up sandwiches, studio apartments, &c, &c. If we "solve" their wealth by taking it from them and giving it to the government, what does that help? What good is the government going to do with that? Allocating money through the government has not been a particularly successful strategy for improving the overall standard of living.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#275
As an aside, in Islam, people have to pay a 2.5% wealth tax annually for charity.[1]

This does make retiring a tad bit complicated. Say you've saved $3M and are ready to retire. That means each year you're spending $75K just to satisfy this tax.

[1] Depending on how your wealth is structured. Cash is 2.5%, but if you own, say, a business, you pay the tax on the value of the goods, not on the value of the building, hardware, etc. You don't pay Zakat on the house you live on. Agriculture is actually taxed at 10%, etc.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#276
post #23

I think the assumption that we're looking for an equivalence here is fundamentally flawed and with it the entire post. For most people income is tied to selling their time. It doesn't scale at all. Unless the income comes from wealth. The societal problem here is a group with self-reinforcing run-away levels of wealth. And to counter that you do need something more extreme than this nonsensical equivalency of income…

The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers, levied on people who have a lot more money and in some cases don't do anything resembling work. It's trivially true that 1% wealth taxes represent something in the region of a fifth of the average annual return on wealth, it's rather less convincing when it's suggested that…

> The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers

This is untrue btw

50% of people in the US pay effectively no net taxes

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#277
Whenever I've seen anyone suggesting a wealth tax, it is specifically to address the very wealthy who pay an effective 0% tax rate, because they use the "buy, borrow, die" strategy. These are not wage earners, working a regular job, these are folks who own enough assets that they can borrow their way through life, living lavishly, never contributing meaningfully to the common good, the roads they are chauffeured over, the infrastructure and laws they benefit mightily from, the police who protect their assets, etc.

Since a lot of billionaires pay practically nothing in taxes, relative to their wealth, a wealth tax that equates to a 20% income tax would be entirely reasonable, and they'd still pay a much smaller percentage than the taxes I pay from my wages. It closes a loophole, it doesn't punish the very rich. And, nobody is suggesting the average 401k or Robinhood portfolio should be subject to a wealth tax.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#278
post #174

If you are wealthy enough, you can live off of untaxed loans from your “unrealized” gains, and never pay taxes on that money at any rate. Meanwhile, I am paying an effective tax rate of around 35%. The principle is simple: if you are spending the money, your gains are realized, and you should pay taxes.

Loans against unrealized gains should just be taxed directly as income. Not indirectly creating more loopholes. Same way stock buybacks should be taxed at the same rate as short term capital gains.

Yes let's encourage more risky behavior! Absolutely braindead takes.

This sort of proposal would establish a minimum 35 % return in any project. Thus halting investment entirely

Let's put this in perspective. I'm currently going to collaterize a few hundred thousand in equity to take a loan to develop homes in my very housing short city of Portland. My calculated return is 40%. This is an excellent return..

It this were taxed then my initial loan would have to be 40% larger which means all my profit would go into paying that back, which means this project never gets done.

You are already going to get the money once the homes are sold and the capital gains are realized. Why is everyone so greedy? You essentially want to tax twice

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#279

As an aside, in Islam, people have to pay a 2.5% wealth tax annually for charity.[1] This does make retiring a tad bit complicated. Say you've saved $3M and are ready to retire. That means each year you're spending $75K just to satisfy this tax. [1] Depending on how your wealth is structured. Cash is 2.5%, but if you own, say, a business, you pay the tax on the value of the goods, not on the value of the building, ha…

[deleted]

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think anyone is simply envious. People mean to point out that allowing individual accumulation of wealth to extreme degrees lead to runaway structural problems. Billionaires and companies existing and providing wages are not inextricably intertwined. It's entirely possible to have one while preventing the other. The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to…

> I don't think anyone is simply envious.

I think most are.

> The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

And how many of those companies and founders have given back to society at the scale that these uber wealthy people have? Entire new economies have been built up.

> ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

This is still just envy. You should try to prove that you're being oppressed by the systems these billionaires have created because we don't have to go very far back to observe when these systems and economies did not exist. I'll remind you that for example, in NYC before Uber, taxi medallions were being sold for over a million dollars and people were going into debt just for the opportunity to drive a cab. If you go far back enough creating a virtual store front to sell your ideas and goods was a gate that was actually very high. Thanks to the systems that are in place now you have the opportunity to spin this up for very little risk and prove out your idea. Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before. You can launch an entire grass roots political campaign on social media for free. Does that sound like a system that oppresses or is that a system that has given you opportunity to enact change?

Even the barrier to invest in companies and participate directly in the profits and value creation has been erased or lowered. Hundreds of millions of people are directly benefitting from this everyday. It is now a few simple clicks of a button and you're in. Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires. And yes, because they did that they will get an asymmetrical reward because their impact and value creation for society is asymmetrical to yours.

You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response? Once you start poking holes at the concept it always reverts to "you're a bootlicker", "why are you defending billionaires, they don't care about you". These responses highlight envy, not reality or the desire to be objective.

Deep down a lot people either don't realize how much free will and agency they now have in this society or they are just living with contempt because everywhere they look they see people that are using that free will to accomplish more than them. It's lack and envy all the way through.

Post reply on HN