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

Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

fair.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 488 posts

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#381

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

dannykwells wrote: post #312

Can someone tell me - what's to stop me fro taking my assets and buying land/assets in a foreign country? Will the US claim jurisdiction over all countries? How will they audit this? BI sucks but even they said as much for why Europe has scrapped most of their wealth taxes: https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-... The US is a country with a terribly funded IRS. They can barely audit those who o…

The IRS is a strange beast - it might be the only government department that, when you give it an extra dollar, it generates more than a dollar in tax revenue.

I'm sure there's a theoretical tipping point where they become too bloated to do their job well, but their current levels of funding are far below that.

People who subscribe to the "wealthy people should pay their fair share" meme would probably be better off directing their efforts toward advocating for more IRS funding, than for changing laws and closing loopholes. The laws are already there - we just need to properly fund the folks that enforce them.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#382

Post by gamblor956 »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #50
tonystubblebine wrote: post #6

As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…

> But businesses only pay taxes on their profit. Except in Washington State.

And Hawaii. See the general excise tax. Fun fact: it's a recursive tax on business revenue (not profit), so if you gross up prices to pass along the tax to customers on a transactional basis, you also need to pay GET on the gross up, ad infinitum. For example, on Oahu this results in a final grossup of approximately 4.7120% (starting from a base GET of 4.5%).

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#383

Post by davrosthedalek »

triceratops wrote: post #303
saddestcatever wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you bought medical insurance policies on your own for yourself or your family, you might qualify for a self-employment tax deduction on the premiums." [1] "If you are enrolled in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan, your premiums may already be tax-free. If your premiums are made through a payroll deduction plan, they are likely made with pre-tax dollars, so you would not be allowed to claim a year-end ta…

I'm confused. What's the difference between a "tax deduction" and paying with "pre-tax dollars"? Do they mean if for example a company pays $5000/year in employee insurance, they can subtract $5000 from their tax bill? If so, that's a tax credit right? As I understand it, a "tax deduction" is a deduction on taxable income (in the case of an individual) or profit (in the case of a company).

You are right, pre-tax dollars is the same as tax deduction. But for self-employment (the first point), there are more conditions, and people might be out of luck. For example if you could be insured by your spouse's employee based insurance, and you choose to buy your own insurance.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#384

Post by LatteLazy »

czbond wrote: post #237
LatteLazy wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 10% of wage earners pay all the tax. But they're not the top 10% by wealth or unearned income. Those guys are getting off free. Reducing income tax by properly taxing inheritance, cap gains or wealth itself would help people who work for a living instead of sitting on their arses and jealousy guarding what their grandfather's grandfather's grandfather brought over from the old country.

The amazing thing is we can ALL buy assets and be the "grandfather's grandfather's grandfather". It isn't hard. Even very small wealth compounds incredibly after 150 years.

No, you can't. Because while the 10k you manage to stash away compounds, the 10bn they stashed away compounds faster and isn't taxed. That's the issue. You'll never get there, neither will your (great great great grand) kids.

Plus, wtf? Why should I be the grandfather's grandfather? If I work hard, I should be rewarded, if I'm lazy I shouldn't be. What my ancestors did or didn't do should be irrelevant and what I do should be irrelevant to my forebears. That's because this is the 21dt century, we're capitalist and meritocratic and pursue the American Dream. We're not a 10th century feudal system monarchy!?

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#385

Post by czbond »

unethical_ban wrote: post #271
czbond wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal income tax is what matters. So yes, everyone pays some sales tax, some property tax, FICA, etc. But what matters is income tax (for individuals).

You don't defend your argument, you just state it.

Astute.

As an engineer, I've found there are two types of 'engineering minds'. Literalists, which cannot get too far past the scope fo the statement. They tend to dissect and add detail; and Expanders, who take it far beyond the original meaning. They tend to "yes, and" a solution (in the improv comedy stance) and expand it in different directions - but are remiss with detail.

And good discussions happen with both insights.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#386

Post by czbond »

Jtsummers wrote: post #245
czbond wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal income tax is what matters. So yes, everyone pays some sales tax, some property tax, FICA, etc. But what matters is income tax (for individuals).

It is not the only one that matters, though it does make up (looked up, link at bottom) about 50% of federal tax revenue. Payroll taxes make up another 36%. Everyone who works and is paid aboveboard pays federal payroll taxes. It's only those whose AGI falls below whatever the present threshold is, or who are not paid aboveboard, who don't pay federal income taxes. If wages were keeping up better with inflation, we'd…

I don't disagree. I was slyly trying to suggest we already have a wealth tax, called 'federal income tax'.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#387

Post by nickpp »

dmje wrote: post #210

I just see tax dodgers as morally redundant people. I try hard to think about it another way, but I just can't. It seems obvious to me from reading extensively around this that we have very little basis for arguing the case for free will. Our entire existence: our personal lives, our business lives, our investments, our health, our wealth - are driven by luck. I run a successful small business in the UK. I can squint…

Since it’s all down to luck, why don’t you try tomorrow this little experiment: donate away your wealth and completely stop all your current hard working. Instead just lay around and watch TV all day.

A year later, come back and let us know how far your luck got you.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#388

Post by ceejayoz »

failuser wrote: post #164
ceejayoz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's spending 42% of take home pay to have roommates! So, probably not affected much by a wealth tax. > $400k per year is about what it takes to run a middle class family w/ 2 kids in such a city. What? The median household income in NYC is about $63k.

Middle class is not median. I’d agree that $400k is barely enough to get to the comparable middle class living in NYC. Earning below $100k will get you subsidized college, right?

Per https://statisticalatlas.com/place/New-York/New-York/Househo..., $123k puts you in top 20%; $250k puts you in top 5%. "95%+ of NYC are lower-class" is simply an unsupportable assertion.

> Earning below $100k will get you subsidized college, right?

That's more reflective of the insane inflation in college costs (and our typical "socialize things, but in the silliest possible way" approach in the States) than what lower/middle/upper class thresholds are.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#389

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

rglover wrote: post #133

The real solution: a flat tax. 20% for everyone, regardless of take. A fair, non-political solution. Dismantle the IRS, ditch all of the complexity.

Progressive taxation is viewed as more fair by more people that flat taxation.

You're using "income" as your input variable to calculate "fairness", but you could just as easily use "disposable income". Someone making $25,000 per year might have a disposable income of $0. Asking this person to kick in $5000 seems ludicrous.

I honestly don't know how you could assess fairness without looking at ability-to-pay:

(income) - (basic survival needs) = (money leftover you can potentially contribute to the government)

This is obvious, fair, and is why most nations have progressive taxation structures.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#390

Post by mikepurvis »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #205
mikepurvis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A famous formulation of that is: "John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

I mean it makes sense socialism removes any real chance of your country being successful so if you think your country has a chance accepting defeat would be horrible.

Doesn't the truth of this hang on what the definition of "success" is? Is ability to produce the occasional Mark Z or Jeff B "success"? Or is success just an upward slope on broad economic indicators like GDP?

I think the picture looks quite different if you look at things like quality of life indicators— and then it's (surprise!) nations like Denmark and Switzerland which top the list. I suspect it would be even more stark if you were able to measure class mobility— the number of people who have at least +x% inflation adjusted net worth over their parents at the same age.

So yeah, it's a little bizarre (and a very US-centric view) to just assume that "success" on a national level and socialist policies are mutually exclusive.

Post reply on HN