Live data from Hacker News

Who died and left the US $7B?

sherwood.news

371–380 of 589 posts

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't family farms plan around such an event occurring, either by having the cash on hand to pay taxes or through some sort of insurance?

Where does that cash come from? Family farms often are worth millions on paper, but it is all land. There typically isn't that cash. And the way tax laws and inflation works you are discouraged to not keep that kind of cash on hand - there is no place to save it that keeps pace with inflation after taxes that is low risk (If everyone tried this you will hear horror stories about someone who puts the money aside and t…

Thank you. I feel like I understand the structure better now

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you principally protect your property by… wait for it… paying taxes to the state to uphold law and order

That is not the state of nature though. There are "primitive" societies that don't organize their village that way. Social pressures and you working alone are enough to protect your property when the total population to worry about is around 100 people. We use taxes because nature doesn't scale to towns of 1000, much less nations of millions. But that is not the state of nature.

[deleted]

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you principally protect your property by… wait for it… paying taxes to the state to uphold law and order

That is not the state of nature though. There are "primitive" societies that don't organize their village that way. Social pressures and you working alone are enough to protect your property when the total population to worry about is around 100 people. We use taxes because nature doesn't scale to towns of 1000, much less nations of millions. But that is not the state of nature.

The concept of property (the way we understand it i.e. all the stuff besides of a handful of personal items) is not something that generally exists or existed in "primitive" societies.

i.e. you can't really "own" more land than you and your family can personally farm and extract rent on it without a state to protect your claim.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#374
post #162
post #94

A fascinating reddit post was mentioned here about a month ago - about the mildly famous (if a little macabre) 'Buy, Borrow, Die' cycle used by the obscenely-wealthy to - multi-generationally - avoid tax obligations. https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyBorrowDieExplained/comments/1f26... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41408772

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. The counterpoint is that this leaves money invested, which means others invest in other things, and still entails interest payments. It exists in part because you don't want someone who inherited his parents' house and wants to move in to go broke trying to pay taxes, or have to re-mortgage it, with an even stronger case with family fa…

> This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix.

Rage about. Off to a good start. I wonder what the conclusion will be?

> [look at all of these reasonable-looking arguments for the existing tax laws]

Sure. Most people are fine with rich people not getting taxed into the middle class or having to work for a living.

What does this prove about anything?

> These all suck, and the government generally collects money on assets as they move not assets at rest. I see no way to resolve it that isn't suckier than the status quo and so am left with the conclusion that people who agitate for such changes are more resentful of the rich than they are worried about the justice or lack thereof of tax avoidance.

Hmm. I knew there was something off about attributing “rage” straight off the bat.

I don’t know how you disentangle “justice” from “resentment” so easily. Resentment IS EXACTLY injustice over a sufficiently long enough time.

But I tend to see this idea that people who are upset about something real need to have... pure emotions. They must be upset because someone else (the poor maybe) are getting shafted. They certainly can’t be resentful (jealous) or something selfish like that.

(I don’t know what dimension you live in in the real world, confronted with these kinds of people, where this would be a compelling argument to anyone. Seems like a Let Them Eat Cake position.)

So people who are rightfully upset—you don’t even argue against that part—get dismissed because they have allowed impurity into their hearts. While the rich get to do their tax schemes. But, he shrugs his shoulder, better that the rich fleece the government than that the commoners have impure thoughts.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#375
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are just generic anti-tax arguments. Yes, if you pay your taxes you will have less money. And maybe you would have used some of that money to do good things. Oh well. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to borrow against assets. That isn't even the problem. The problem is that you can go your whole life without paying taxes on gains of those assets, then pass them on to your he…

The main concern with this is how do you actually get the records of what the cost basis was from someone who is dead?

If the issue is that people are dying leaving behind significant wealth but not documenting this, just make the estate tax 100% on any assets missing documentation like this. I'm sure the lawyers would figure out the rest.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state of nature is no tax The state of nature is no property. Billionaires can't exist without a government enforcing their property rights. Why shouldn't they pay the entity that made it possible for them to accumulate their vast wealth?

Given that most billionaires have their billions as imaginary ownership of gigantic corporations, how exactly would someone steal their shares from them such that government needs to enforce their property rights? Can I just walk up to the bank and say "hey, I have $100 billion worth of Facebook stock, gibs me da money"? You know, but for the feds swooping in (or possibly the Delaware state troopers) and shutting tha…

> Can I just walk up to the bank and say "hey, I have $100 billion worth of Facebook stock, gibs me da money"?

No, but assuming you are on Facebook's board / in upper management you can conspire with the rest of the board to get rid of Zuckerberg (possibly permanently) and share the company amongst yourself.

ARM China seems like somewhat close example of what can happen when there is no government willing to protect property rights. e.g. as long as he has enough local support a CEO of your subsidiary could just take over the entity and there would be nothing you can do about it.

IMHO we'd end up with some dystopian form of Cyberpunk style techno feudalism without strong governments regulating everything. Which in theory might be a good thing for the corporations themselves, just not for most of the people who are currently running them.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#377
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All it means is that a percent of your investment becomes "realized" every year and you sell a portion of your investment to cover it. Because there is a ton of investments that aren't liquid, aren't trivial to value on an ongoing basis, and aren't infinitely divisible. Again, a farm is a perfect example. Land prices are going up. Your family farm was worth n million, and is now theoretically worth twice that. Do y…

Just to be clear, we're talking about a wealth tax above a certain threshold, think hundreds of millions of dollars to billions and billions. This has no application to anything remotely related to the "family farm". And yes, it is okay to force someone with a half a billion dollars in assets to sell off a small percentage for tax reasons, unless you think they should never ever be taxed for it.

I'm addressing the parent's proposal, which is to "why not just keep selling fractions of the asset to cover taxes".

Yes, if you're rich, you might have other ways to cover the liability, but that's not what the parent said.

And for what it's worth, these "billionaire" thresholds in political discourse are fairly meaningless. The last time the Biden admin "cracked down on billionaires", they instituted IRS reporting requirements for Paypal and eBay when you receive in excess of $600 a year. There just isn't enough billionaires for policies that truly target only them to make a difference, unless you flat out start taxing / confiscating wealth.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#378
post #16

My takeaway: Forbes rich list amounts are basically fictional. Do you think they are devoting the kind of resources it would take to unravel each billionaire's finances? Clearly not. If it's mostly large sharehioldings they might be in the ballpark in some obvious cases.

forbes sell entertainment. their clients are not even who read it, but advertisers who but advertisement.

readers and space for ads on the magazine pages are both called inventory in the biz.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#379
post #277
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Renters do not pay property tax in the US. There's a simple way to visualize why is not true: You're renting a property for $1000/mo. Whatever the owner is paying for property taxes, you don't know. Then, property taxes go up by $200/mo. Do you think your rent won't go up by at least $200/mo as a direct consequence of the tax increase? Because it will. Because the renter is of course paying for all costs, including…

> Then, property taxes go up by $200/mo. Do you think your rent won't go up by at least $200/mo as a direct consequence of the tax increase? Because it will. Because the renter is of course paying for all costs, including those taxes. So, before property taxes went up, the landlord could have raised rents by $200/month, but hadn't because..?

Could he have?

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#380
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, we can. the whole premise of a democracy is that every law is a solid majority away from being turned over.one of the reasons big money is inherent anti-democratic.

Okay, I don't actually believe in that form of democracy. Not all things that are legal are good, therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do. I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. And no, that is not the premise of every system that incorporates democracy as an element, it's the premise of an absolute democracy.

Of course no one is surprised.

> therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do.

The constraints are supposed to be a constitution and time. In time, as people die and new people are born, the world changes. New people are in charge. They can even rewrite the constitution.

What other alternative is there?

> I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule.

“Mob rule” is just the pejorative anti-democrats use for democracy not going their way.

What’s a rule-by-rich-people pejorative? Pig-rule? Just a pejorative. Just as meaningless.

Anti-democrats don’t have rational arguments on their side. Therefore they have to invent specters of the pitch-forked mob who is killing babies in the streets, the desperate, unwashed…

But all of that begs the question: if the “mob” rules, why are they in the streets? With pitch forks? Desperate? Of course it is completely irrational. If the “mob” already ruled there would be be no mob because the average person would enjoy dignity and respect. Safety and security.

They would have enough means to appear upstanding. Like you know, those rich people who rule now or ruled in the past. Those who never had to excuse themselves for being part of a mob or being unclean.

But it’s clear that if you want people to be desperate and in the dirt then you also don’t want them to rule. That’s how you get a mob.

Post reply on HN