The article seems to be toggling the conflation of income vs net worth.
We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
301–310 of 580 posts
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has nothing do with physical infrastructure and everything to do with social infrastructure - the people and organizations that are located there. And the weather.
The value of the land at Burning Man is much lower than the Bay Area, even though it has many of the same people. I think the infrastructure is pretty important. Disregarding it entirely seems a bit much. Even a bad neighborhood in Philly has more value per square foot than farmland in Kansas.
> The value of the land at Burning Man is much lower than the Bay Area, even though it has many of the same people.
You're proving GP's point. People from the Bay Area go to a desolate desert in the dead of summer because of the social aspects of Burning Man - the land is worthless because its a desert, owned by the Federal government, and they only stay a week out of the year. They bring the infrastructure with them, from stadium audio equipment to porta-poties to wireless equipment.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
The millionaire next door uses an artificially low threshold for wealth. It’s not a book about the wealthy, it’s largely a book about retirement. 1M is only generating ~40k per year, if that’s your savings you can’t afford to live in an affluent area without a job.
That book was originally written decades ago. Its threshold corresponds to about $1.7 million in savings in today's world. Their median was $1.6 million, or about $2.7 million in today's dollars. And given that the people who attained that status on average lived in cheap neighborhoods, the fact that their income wouldn't stretch long in an affluent neighborhood isn't really a concern for them.
Even adjusting for inflation from 1996 half the population had 1.0 - 1.6 million.
That translates to ~$1.7M - 2.7M, or an income of ~68k to 108k which is still not that significant.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the countless issues raised by people being unable to exercise stock options for tax reasons. It’s clear that taxing stock is NOT unprecedented. We’ve seen repeatedly over the past 50 years that Bezos will NOT be taxed of that wealth under the current system. There’s nothing sacred about different types of wealth. The question is whether society can benefit more from taxing and redistributing that wealth, or…
> Look at the countless issues raised by people being unable to exercise stock options for tax reasons. It’s clear that taxing stock is NOT unprecedented. It is unprecedented to tax someone on the value of their unsold stock. That's what a wealth tax would be: We force someone to pay taxes on something (their holdings / net worth) simply because it is valuable, but not necessarily because it was liquidated into cash…
> It is unprecedented to tax someone on the value of their unsold stock.
You mean unprecedented in the US, right? European countries have been trying various wealth taxes on and off for some time now, some of which count global assets including stocks.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you're describing an obstacle to change, you're describing the mechanism of change avoidance. Compare: "Gosh, every time we try to tax the wolves, it ends up hurting the sheep as well. Why can't our 100% wolf, 0% sheep Congress get this right? I guess it's just a hard problem!" The solution is not to give up, the solution is to actually tax the rich more. Also, your examples are awful: paying taxes on t…
The problem isn't that it hurts the sheep as well, it's that it hurts the sheep almost entirely. Raising capital gains would be a decent idea that forces the rich to pay more. Basically zero support for it. Closing loopholes helps too, not what we're seeing in tax policy discussions which focus on rates instead. Raising the top rate on income when most of the ultra-rich's money comes from investment isn't making sens…
The problem with selling your home isn't the income tax on the gains. That would be new money you have. The problem is that the closing costs are very high and that you have to pay yearly property taxes on it whether or not you are selling it.
In NYS, you would lose 2% for selling a home in transfer tax (of the value not the gain); and then if you are financing another home 1.25% of the mortgage value. So right there you've lit 3% of the two transactions on fire. That doesn't even count the non-government fees like commissions, attorneys (for you and the bank), title insurance, etc. that eat quickly eat up many thousands of dollars.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#306In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining.
some countries have a social "fabric" .. the USA is a geographic location with English-style law, and a lot of people who are very divided and increasingly antagonistic.. Try to build the Roman Empire, and you get Roman Empire problems in your population..
While the U.S. certainly has regional, class, and other subcultures, there is very clearly a national culture and "social fabric".
The easiest way to see this, if you grew up in the U.S. and have not traveled much, is to read tourist guides for your own country.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
That you consider yourself upper middle class with an income of 1M a year already says a lot about how skewed your view is (not surprising there was some article on HN recently about research showing that the rich and the poor consider themselves middle class both). Sure you are not a billionaire but you are not middle class anymore, you earn 30 times the median income in the US. Now comparing yourself with the super…
have you heard about different cost of living in different places? What if the person plans to fund himself/herself in the retirement and pay for kids college rather than expecting all that "for free" from the government?
There is no metro region on Earth where $1M/year can be considered middle class.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#308In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining.
Interesting. It seems to work for Finland. In some countries it would probably make you a kidnapping target.
The kidnapping problem is on a whole other level.
Denmark is known for "leaving babies in strollers outside of cafes". The Nordic social-liberal countries (Finland included) solve this problem not by opacity but by having social support and trust.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#309So lots of people saying the ultra rich are hard to tax because they take out loans against assets to fund the day-to-day. This then results in an argument about the morality/viability/etc of a wealth tax. But... why can't we just tax the loans?
Small business owners take out loans in order to build up their company. Making that harder seems like something HN would implicitly dislike.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#310The top 1% contribute 38.5% of Federal income tax revenue.
Two questions:
1. How much of the wealth (and/or income) do they have?
2. If they paid their taxes like the rest of the population, what would this number be?