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

331–340 of 580 posts

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

#331

Post by ineptech »

TimPC wrote: post #271
ineptech wrote: post #252

Earlier 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…

> Raising capital gains would be a decent idea that forces the rich to pay more. Basically zero support for it.

Zero support among whom, the wolves or the sheep? Taxing the rich more is generally popular[0] and this would accomplish that; it would seem like that's support.

> Taxes on the sale of a primary home is not as rare as you think.

I would need to see a source on this; I can't imagine a scenario in which any middle-class person pays any tax on their home at all, unless they live in an extreme-outlier of a neighborhood or find gold in their backyard.

0: https://money.com/wealth-tax-rich-tax-rates-2020-presidentia... for example

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

#332

Post by heavyset_go »

whiddershins wrote: post #92

Every time someone tries to make a tax targeting the ultra rich, it ends up hurting the moderately wealthy instead. Every. Single. Time. The worse tax situation is always the person who makes 500k in a good year, or sells a house they held for 25 years which went up a bunch in value. I suspect this is a significant factor in social mobility. Our tax system is punitive to people who try to leave the working class.

> Every time someone tries to make a tax targeting the ultra rich, it ends up hurting the moderately wealthy instead.Every. Single. Time.

Get back to me when there is a good faith effort to raise the capital gains tax and/or institute a wealth tax instead of pretending that that "ultra rich" people derive their wealth from employment income.

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

#333

Post by ojbyrne »

ineptech wrote: post #252
whiddershins wrote: post #92

Every time someone tries to make a tax targeting the ultra rich, it ends up hurting the moderately wealthy instead. Every. Single. Time. The worse tax situation is always the person who makes 500k in a good year, or sells a house they held for 25 years which went up a bunch in value. I suspect this is a significant factor in social mobility. Our tax system is punitive to people who try to leave the working class.

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…

If a person makes $500k in a good year, they will get hit with higher taxes, but they're probably going to invest a lot in order to hedge against not so good years. Taxing their capital gains is a double whammy.

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

#334

Post by teachingassist »

TimPC wrote: post #271
ineptech wrote: post #252

Earlier 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…

> Basically zero support for it.

Wealth taxes are extremely well-supported, despite the media as an industry [and politicians] being owned by people strongly motivated to campaign against it all costs, e.g.:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-p...

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

#336

Post by vineyardmike »

RC_ITR wrote: post #243
motohagiography wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who live in hot real estate areas for years made them the hot real estate areas. Real estate appreciation isn't free money. It's people who risked moving into an area and brought their culture with them. This is what creates the value. Just because middle class people benefit from the subsidy of low interest rates that create asset bubbles does not mean that the people who raised families in a neighbourhoo…

>brought their culture with them. Yikes. Do you really think places like SOMA, SLU, DTLA, etc. got better because rich people brought their 'culture' there? I'd recommend you visit said places and see for yourself, most of the 'culture' is in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods.

> in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods.

These are the people that brought their culture. Their housing is probably also well appreciated.

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

#337

Post by koheripbal »

akie wrote: post #310
WalterBright wrote: post #257

The 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?

1. We don't know. Wealth is not taxable. Income is taxed.

2. They already pay according to the same rules as everyone else.

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

#338

Post by vkou »

fallingknife wrote: post #300
Spooky23 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My giving a shit about household capital gains went away when a partisan congress decided to buy redneck votes with punitive SALT rollback.

Why should 2 people with the same income, who get the same services for the federal government pay different federal tax rates? That's what SALT does, and it should have been eliminated entirely.

2 people with the same income get different benefits, if one lives in a red state, and the other in a blue state. The red state is a net recipient of federal funding, the blue state is a net provider. Most red state economies would implode without this fire-hose of free money. Texas or Florida might be okay, the rest, not so much.

The same thing plays out on the state level. Eastern Washington loves to complain about taxes, and I would love nothing more than to let it have its wish... As long as Western Washington can stop subsidizing it.

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

#339

Post by frockington1 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #199
dangus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it does. The working class doesn’t get stock options, vesting cliffs, inheritance, or capital gains! Or much of a savings account or 401k, for that matter. The option to stop working for more than a few weeks or months takes you squarely out of the working class. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that the parent comment to ours is attempting to advocate for taxing just the billionaires and not to tax the…

Plenty of normal working class people get options if they work at a tech company.

When I worked at Home depot as a lot boy I got stock options

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

#340

Post by w4 »

Loughla wrote: post #279
Shacklz wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And many would then ask, what's the motive for generating wealth if it's just going to be taken away from you? The same motivation that drives some folks to study e.g. philosophy, even though it's perfectly well known that this will never make you rich: Because they like it. You don't just e.g. found a company for the sake of money - you also do it because it allows you to do things on your own terms, it gives you…

I find it absolutely fascinating that your arguments are shot down on this board, because it's business, but that is literally what you're told on a constant basis if you want to go into the education field in the US. You don't do it for the paycheck, you do it because you like it. Why education, social work, and other human services fields, but not business? That is odd to me.

> I find it absolutely fascinating that your arguments are shot down on this board, because it's business, but that is literally what you're told on a constant basis if you want to go into the education field in the US.

It’s not actually that fascinating, and has a simple explanation: the people saying this about teachers are not the same people that are commenting here. It’s a non-sequitur.

The notion that educators (or anyone else for that matter) ought to accept bad pay or working conditions because of “passion” is completely objectionable. Teachers should be well-compensated for the important and difficult work they do.

Post reply on HN