I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes • Hacker News Board

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#31

Post by gridlockd » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

supergauntlet wrote: post #2

Sounds just like Warren Buffett: http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-mor... Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!): https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts…

> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85%

...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw...

(edit)

To the people who don't get the point:

Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do.

People may have this fantasy about rich people that they're just hoarding money like a dragon hoards gold. In reality, rich people invest their money, which the government wants them to do, so they don't tax investments (capital gains) that highly.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#32

Post by gridlockd » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #24

That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state. The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/demo... I was really glad to find the Washington Post publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promise…

Downvoting the truth doesn't change it, sorry!

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#33

Post by supergauntlet » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #31

supergauntlet wrote: post #2

Sounds just like Warren Buffett: http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-mor... Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!): https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts…

> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% ...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw... (edit) To the people who don't get the point: Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do. People m…

Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect taxes?

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#34

Post by komali2 » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #24

That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state. The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/demo... I was really glad to find the Washington Post publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promise…

Can you clarify why you believe this is a "virtue signal?" You're the second person in this thread to do so.

My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action." And yet:

> Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me.

In the article he's saying this isn't enough. So, why use the term "virtue signal?" Are you arguing that he's doing nothing about the issue but writing a blog post?

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#35

Post by xvedejas » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

But why raise income or wealth taxes when you can raise land value taxes or carbon/pollution taxes instead? My income does not harm anyone else, nor does being wealthy. But my hoarding of land does exclude land from others. My release of carbon / pollution into the atmosphere even more obviously harms other people. I think we're doing a huge disservice taxing the wrong things, when there are things that are useful to tax (apart from the government revenue).

This is why I think we should lower (or remove) income taxes -- because we could raise the same amount in more useful ways. I think there are also economic reasons to believe income taxes make the labor market less efficient. If your goal is to tackle inequality, why insist on doing it in a sub-optimal way? It absolutely matters not just how much you tax and who you tax, but also what you're taxing (and therefore discouraging). Let's start with some revenue-neutral changes to the tax structure. We might see both a stronger economy and less pollution because of it, for free.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#36

Post by youareawesome » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #28

youareawesome wrote: post #6

If you took the total combined wealth of the wealthiest 100 Americans, you wouldn't be able to fund the federal government for more than half a year or so. Taxing the rich sounds nice as virtuous political rhetoric but it won't effectively address poverty, just further erodes the liberty of private citizens. If you want to fund more social programs then tax corporations, like the oil companies and the large investmen…

> just further erodes the liberty of private citizens How does taxation do this? Taxation is a mechanism for funding the maintenance of an ordered society which enables extreme wealth creation. It's the wealthiest citizens who benefit the most from law enforcement, infrastructure, and national defence.

Taxation is well-acknowledged a trade-off between liberty and social responsibility.

This is a new type of tax that has never been implemented in the US. If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that. So what is the goal?

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#37

Post by komali2 » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #32

gridlockd wrote: post #24

That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state. The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/demo... I was really glad to find the Washington Post publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promise…

Downvoting the truth doesn't change it, sorry!

I think you're getting downvoted for using a term like "virtue signal" to describe someone who devotes themselves full-time to philanthropy, and then diverging into a political flame-bait comment about "democrat scam."

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#38

Post by atonse » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

slang800 wrote: post #22

tylerhou wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except raising tax rates on everyone above a certain income is much more effective than one person voluntarily donating.

Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.

Errr you can’t just hand the government money randomly. You have to owe it to them. It all has to add up in some way and be accounted for.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#39

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:38 PM UTC

supergauntlet wrote: post #33

gridlockd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% ...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw... (edit) To the people who don't get the point: Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do. People m…

Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect taxes?

[deleted]

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#40

Post by youareawesome » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:39 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #26

youareawesome wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying. I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.

> I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans. But in a response to an article about the top 1%, you used the top 100 wealthiest Americans as a counterpoint. If you're not trying to make a connection, why bother with the analogy?

I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.