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

For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

inequality.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#41

Post by phishfi »

foolfoolz wrote: post #15
saghm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: if people like the one described in the article won't actually end up paying more in taxes due to an increase in their tax rate, why do they oppose it?

because this Hausers law shows that the U.S. government doesn't have a revenue problem, it's collecting proportionately the same amount of money as it has been. there' a spending problem: we keep finding more and more ways to spend money. this whole green new deal proposal is "lets go spend billions more dollars on XYZ" a lot of the mental pushback is what are you going to stop spending on today to pay for it? the an…

Plus, this idea that 70% off the top 1% is still nowhere near enough to pay for any of this. The numbers I've read suggest that taxing 70% of the $10mil+ earners would amount to around $80bil in revenue, assuming no changes to those earners' incomes as a result of the increased taxes... That's nearly nothing compared to this GND proposal.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#42

Post by phishfi »

hopler wrote: post #31
foolfoolz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because this Hausers law shows that the U.S. government doesn't have a revenue problem, it's collecting proportionately the same amount of money as it has been. there' a spending problem: we keep finding more and more ways to spend money. this whole green new deal proposal is "lets go spend billions more dollars on XYZ" a lot of the mental pushback is what are you going to stop spending on today to pay for it? the an…

What's wrong with investing taxes in growing the GDP? Why does the funding of current projects affect you level of support for different projects? That's sunk cost fallacy.

Where's the proof that this would increase the GDP?

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#43

Post by riskneutral »

jhayward wrote: post #25
avoutthere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.

Now we enter the area where almost no commenters understand how sovereign currency debt works, and what is required for a healthy economy. It would take a mini-treatise to summarize what's wrong with this statement, so suffice it to say that there are several scenarios where such a debt is absolutely healthy and encouraged, and no one should use it as an excuse to put their foot further on the neck of the lowest rung…

The chief complaint is that many people have almost no money and a few people have almost all the money. Where is this money? It is in bank accounts. Where does the money in the banks comes from? The banks borrowed the money from the central banks. Where did the central banks get the money from? The central banks borrowed it from themselves. How will the central banks pay themselves back? They central banks hold, among other assets, a large quantity of US Treasury bonds. The central banks pay themselves back whenever the US government pays interest on its bonds. If we want people to have more money, then the banks need more money from the central banks, and the central banks need a larger quantity of US Treasury bonds. If we want to redistribute money using taxes, we probably would want even more US Treasury bonds to be issued.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#44

Post by subjectHarold »

dragonwriter wrote: post #35
subjectHarold wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is fair, I didn't explain that. But it is fairly simple: progressive tax systems don't reduce inequality. The US already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world? Is it working? The US is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Look at other similar systems, are they working? Also, no...they are also amongst the most unequal in the world. More broadly, this is totally out of step with wha…

> But it is fairly simple: progressive tax systems don't reduce inequality. Ceteris paribus, they do (and certainly inequality has gotten worse in the US since Reagan's tax burden shift reduced tax progressivity), but particularly progressive tax systems are often pared with spending systems with less downward redistribution (or more upward redistribution) than those they are compared with, which counteracts the effe…

I agree. As I have said elsewhere, US spending is also unusually bad. But I have seen nothing to suggest that the tax-hike crew have any good ideas about spending either. Their idea seems to be "let's just be Denmark", this is exceptionally dumb ("you can't be like Denmark" is the first lesson in most comparative policy analysis courses).

And the issue with progressive systems is that all other things aren't equal. Great, something works in theory...no-one cares. If you are analysing policy, it isn't economics, no-one cares about theory...all that matters are results. Progressive tax systems don't work.

The idea of upward and downward redistribution also sounds like something beloved of theoreticians. Something is only upward or downward re distributive after the fact. The US needs to find its own path (as an example: the idea of a "single payer" health system is just preposterous).

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

subjectHarold wrote: post #44
dragonwriter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it is fairly simple: progressive tax systems don't reduce inequality. Ceteris paribus, they do (and certainly inequality has gotten worse in the US since Reagan's tax burden shift reduced tax progressivity), but particularly progressive tax systems are often pared with spending systems with less downward redistribution (or more upward redistribution) than those they are compared with, which counteracts the effe…

I agree. As I have said elsewhere, US spending is also unusually bad. But I have seen nothing to suggest that the tax-hike crew have any good ideas about spending either. Their idea seems to be "let's just be Denmark", this is exceptionally dumb ("you can't be like Denmark" is the first lesson in most comparative policy analysis courses). And the issue with progressive systems is that all other things aren't equal. G…

> But I have seen nothing to suggest that the tax-hike crew have any good ideas about spending either. Their idea seems to be "let's just be Denmark”.

I've seen none where this is the case.

> And the issue with progressive systems is that all other things aren't equal.

You can compare situations where things outside of the tax system are, if not perfectly ceteris paribus, at least more comparable than in normal country-v.-country comparisons, like comparing the US before Reagan's tax burden shift to the US after. And when you do that, suddenly progressivity and inequality become opposed. It's only when progressivity is offset by something that mitigates it's ability to drive down inequality that it doesn't have that effect.

> Progressive tax systems don't work.

But they do. The fact that they can (and in the case of the US absolutely do) have their effects offset by larger effects of other aspects of policy that are directed at opposing ends doesn't mean they don't work, it means that if you want reduced inequality, you can't crank those opposed policies up when you crank up progressivity, you need to at worst leave them alone or, better, dial them down.

> The idea of upward and downward redistribution also sounds like something beloved of theoreticians.

It's simple fact if you take money in and send money out, you are either sending the average dollar back to someone who has greater, equal, or less wealth, income, or whatever measure you are concerned about than the person the average dollar came from.

> as an example: the idea of a "single payer" health system is just preposterous

That isn't really an example that clarifies and supports your conclusion, since it is itself an unsupported and equally controversial conclusion to the one it is offered to support.

Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke

#46

Post by ardy42 »

zapnuk wrote: post #22

His main argument besides 'name a country where this has ever worked' was that he is a philanthropist. He alleges that his foundation would have contributed more (in terms of $$$) than a 70% marginal rate. He further feels more comfortable deciding where/how to help by himself instead of giving the money to the gouvernment. Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the >5.000.000$/year…

> Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the >5.000.000$/year behave the same?

Also billionaire philanthropy probably wont tackle the problems or solutions that will help society but hurt billionaires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

Post reply on HN