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

We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 580 posts

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#311

Post by dougmwne »

zepto wrote: post #280
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it unlikely that even a state actor would have access to literally all the same private data that ProPublica has acquired over the years, and that they'd know what data ProPublica has and what can be safely manipulated.

This is a straw man. There is no reason they would need ‘literally all’ of Propublica’s data. We don’t know how many data points were verified, but it need not be many.

>In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources.

So we know it was at least 50 data points and not all of them were public. It was likely many hundreds of data points since it would be trivial to check more than one number if you already had 2 copies of a tax return pulled up.

If we take ProPublica's words to be accurate, then how would a state actor know exactly which 50 individuals ProPublica would have access to given that they would have a vast network of contacts and can and did ask the individuals involved to review the information they received and point out any inaccuracies.

Either these are real tax returns, ProPublica is lying or the state actor has a crystal ball.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#312

Post by hawk_ »

fastball wrote: post #270

So 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?

yes that's called interest which the fed is reluctant to raise to appease the same lot in the name of improving employment.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#313

Post by skybrian »

TimPC wrote: post #297
skybrian wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably capital gains should be paid earlier so it’s a sunk cost. Being able to put it off is market-distorting. It’s hard to come up with a fair way to do it though. Maybe a requirement to save money in advance based on market price, like payroll deductions? Then once you actually sell, you might even get a bit of a refund, encouraging turnover. But that would affect people with cash-flow problems the most. And the…

I think being able to put off capital gains on assets like homes and start-up stock is necessary for the tax system to not do awful things like force people to sell a home because it becomes too valuable or bankrupt someone who has stock options in a company that reaches a high valuation but has untraceable stock.

We consider these awful because of tradition.

The land tax advocates would say that people who own valuable real estate should sell, they are hoarding valuable property.

My scheme (which I’m not too serious about) would not force bankruptcy in the stock options scenario because you could give up some stock options to get your money back. Or possibly get a very low interest loan since it would be fully collateralized by the forced savings.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#314

Post by jl2718 »

1024core wrote: post #216

I'm not sure I agree with taxing the "wealth", instead of income. Sure, on paper, Buffett's wealth went up by $23B; but these are just imaginary numbers based on the whims of the market. The tax should be on what amount of money actually flowed into his bank account.

You can follow this logic all the way down:

- tax on wealth

- tax on growth

- tax on capital gains

- tax on dollar deposits

- tax on spending

- tax on value-added

- tax on labor

Oh wait, that doesn't work at all.

- no tax

Which is the correct answer that ends up in everybody paying for the economy in proportion to their benefit from it. We're already operating like this: https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/us-treasury-securit...

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#315

Post by zepto »

dougmwne wrote: post #311
zepto wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straw man. There is no reason they would need ‘literally all’ of Propublica’s data. We don’t know how many data points were verified, but it need not be many.

>In every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources. So we know it was at least 50 data points and not all of them were public. It was likely many hundreds of data points since it would be trivial to check more than one number if you already had 2 copies of a tax return pulled up. If we take Pr…

> 50 individuals

Still a straw man - how many of these 50 were public? It’s only the private ones that matter.

> It was likely many hundreds of data points since it would be trivial to check more than one number if you already had 2 copies of a tax return pulled up.

How is this relevant? Multiple points from public sources don’t show anything.

The only thing that matters is the number of sources who are both independent and private.

All an attacker would need to do is have access to a few of these private records and they could make their leak look genuine.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#316

Post by silicon2401 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #100
silicon2401 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, at least not with so simple an implementation. I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes. There should be at least a minimum threshold where wealth is completely untaxed so that people can live freely and not have to work until they die. Enough for a house, some property and land, and a retirement fund. I'd consider it more justifiable to tax someone like Bill…

"I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes." I am against a system in which some escape work while others do not.

This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount."

Life's not fair, and no amount of politics or regulations will change that. There will always be some people with better health, more attractiveness, more intelligence, more charisma, better connections, more drive, better self-control, and so on. I have excellent physical and mental health despite hardly ever going to a doctor in my life; I have good genes and I have a natural interest in eating healthy and exercising. Some people are born into rich families and will never have to work a day in their life if they don't want to. Some people are beautiful and go about their life just shy of being worshipped because of their looks. That's life.

I have zero problem with a world in which some people have a way better life than everyone else. My goal is to avoid bringing anybody down while bringing as many people as possible up. Let the rich guy be rich, and find a way to help the poor guy educate himself and get more opportunities. Let the beautiful people be beautiful, and help everyone else take care of themselves better and learn to make the most of what they have. It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#317

Post by silicon2401 »

gugagore wrote: post #255
axiosgunnar wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What incentive would I have in your system to be a frugal hard worker that practices delayed gratification instead of a dopamine-addicted wasteful lazy consumer?

What incentive do I have in not-that-system to be a cooperative, generous hard worker that practices collectivism instead of a power-addicted exploitative ambitious business magnate? ^- is another awfully slanted question.

> collectivism

Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. I'm a misanthrope and I don't want to live in a collective society, I want to live in a society where I can get away from other humans and keep to myself. Taxes and laws are enough to keep society civil and functional; going beyond that is imposing your own personal beliefs on everyone else, like a theocracy or dictatorship.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#318

Post by tannhauser23 »

lumost wrote: post #225
1024core wrote: post #216

I'm not sure I agree with taxing the "wealth", instead of income. Sure, on paper, Buffett's wealth went up by $23B; but these are just imaginary numbers based on the whims of the market. The tax should be on what amount of money actually flowed into his bank account.

The problem is that there is no way to track what flows into his bank account. Evidence says that he can avoid being taxed on any dollars flowing to his bank account. This wasn't a huge problem a century ago due to the Estate tax ensuring that estates would shrink over time and eventually be taxed. In stark contrast to European laws that required estates to be maintained in their entirety to preserve the aristocracy.…

What are you talking about? You think Warren Buffet can covertly sell his holdings and not have anybody find out? If he executes any sales the brokers will have the records; if he transfer the funds to any bank in the world, there will be plethora of records for regulators to access. There's no way he can secretly hide large transfers.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#319

Post by yourapostasy »

skybrian wrote: post #287
TimPC wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Arguably capital gains should be paid earlier so it’s a sunk cost. Being able to put it off is market-distorting. It’s hard to come up with a fair way to do it though. Maybe a requirement to save money in advance based on market price, like payroll deductions? Then once you actually sell, you might even get a bit of a refund, encouraging turnover. But that would affect people with cash-flow problems the most. And the…

> For large residential buildings in California, I’ve heard that apartment owners will essentially swap buildings for some kind of tax advantage.

You might be thinking of the federal-level 1031 exchange [1]. California’s particularly distortive Prop. 13-based market has led to a separate Prop. 60 tax base exchange mechanism that might also fit what you saw [2].

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0110/10-things-t...

[2] https://www.bosinvest.com/blog/tax-planning/dreaming-of-down...

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#320

Post by dougmwne »

zepto wrote: post #281
dougmwne wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, state actors have a lot of resources and capabilities, but omniscience is not one of them.

Why would they need omniscience?

Probability.

Let's say a state actor had access to a whole pile of tax returns and wanted to manipulate them to change the conclusions ProPublica would draw. The state actor changes half the data points. Let's say ProPublica was able to check an average of 3 data points on those 50 individuals they reviewed. The data point could have either been manipulates or untouched. I'd model this like a coin flip and say that if ProPublica didn't find the manipulation after checking 150 data points, it's like flipping 150 heads in a row or 2^150 or basically impossible.

Post reply on HN