How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#281

Post by Timon3 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:03 AM UTC

taxinaut wrote: post #35

twoodfin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t become weaker unless you can cogently express a limiting principle to your argument: - Why isn’t it fair to take 99% of the highest earners’ income? - Why isn’t it fair to take 50% of the median earner’s income? They, too, drive on roads and send their children to school.

Another good one: Why is it fair to take X% of earnings made over 2 years, but Y>X % if earned over 1 year, for the same total earnings? Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on. Instead we should only look to what a taxation regime accomplishes.

> Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on.

Maybe not from a distance, but there are ways for multiple people to come to a fair conclusion. The most basic example are two children who have to share something, where one cuts the thing to be shared, and the other is allowed choice of which half he wants.

The important thing is: incentives for unfairness must be removed. If someone can get ahead by being unfair, they will do so. The only way to get around this is to make sure the people deciding the rules do not know where they'll end up, so they must be as fair as possible to improve their own situation.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#282

Post by kjandersen » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

jrmg wrote: post #109

kjandersen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I wrote this comment as a _reaction_ to yours -- it turned out not to be a _response_ to it, so I apologise if I seem to put words in your mouth.) I have this idea rummaging about that I have never quite seen articulated in these discussions. The earnings of "rich friends" are often seen as a singular, isolated achievement, and fairness is then discussed as relative to that: "they earned it, so is it fair to take X%…

It didn’t go well for Obama when he made that argument publicly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

Thanks for the link, the core idea of Warren presented there is exactly my sentiment. I am not at all surprised by the timeline of events on that page, though!

I liked this one:

> ... a humor website later commented on the fact that the stadium where the GOP hosted the "We Built It" theme at the convention was constructed using 62% taxpayer financing.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#283

Post by LeonB » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 1:04 PM UTC

jcfrei wrote: post #191

Swenrekcah wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assets should be taxed progressively. Capitalism results in the power coming from capital. Therefore capital taxes should be the primary taxation mechanism. There are issues with it such as cashflow problems and more, but all systems have issues and they can be overcome.

Exactly, taxing assets instead of income is a no-brainer. All income that is not used for consumption becomes an asset itself and if people cant consume all their income then that should be taxed. The reason it isnt done is that any country that introduces wealth / assets taxes experiences immediate wealth flight (see Norway for a recent example). A wealth tax can only be done at a global level for example through th…

Yes - the root problem is lack of international tax treaties. There’s no simple solution, but acknowledging that this is the root cause is a vital step 0 in making any progress.

We’re fortunately at an inflection point where there are some (though not many) governments large enough to challenge mega international companies. Sadly they are somewhat captured by the largest international companies — so it’s hard to see any solution.

Simple example — Australia was trying to participate in the construction of international tax laws. The only companies capable of understanding the existing Byzantine laws were hired as consultants and immediately turned around and marketed their insider knowledge on the topic to their rich clients.

There was nothing remarkable about the story - ie its occurrence was not remarkable. The fact that the media ignored it as a story for 18 months was not remarkable. The slightly remarkable thing is that for a few weeks a small slice of the media reported on it at all.

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/pwc-scandal...

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#284

Post by t43562 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:50 AM UTC

markdown wrote: post #242

t43562 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of people being wealthy is that they get to take risks based on their judgement and we hope that benefits everyone. Without a reward nobody will take risks. Governments don't take political risks so you cannot expect them to be the sole chance takers in the economy. What we obviously don't want is people who find a way to dump risk on everyone else so that they cannot fail. Not paying a living wage is a way…

Yup. $1M/yr (the example I provided above) is a massive reward, so taxation in this way (leaving the risk taker huge rewards) is a great way to encourage entrepreneurship while ensuring a better society by using the extra money (taxed) to give him better streets, lower crime, and a better educated workforce/neighbours.

That prevents a person from taking their next bigger risk e.g. building a factory and hoping that the products it makes will sell. If we only had better streets we'd be a bit like the Romans - bogged down trying to satisfy everyone with centuries old technology.