We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by carapace » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

Shacklz wrote: post #218

carapace wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But how? I think that, if you could somehow collect all the wealth and redistribute it equally, within a few years we would see disparity reappear. Some folks are better at accumulating wealth than others. It seems to me that you would have to keep reallocating wealth. And many would then ask, what's the motive for generating wealth if it's just going to be taken away from you?

> 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…

Folks who want to start and run a business and give away their profit can already do so. E.g. Warren Buffet gives away half his wealth voluntarily. Or take the case of Dan Price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Price

Is it ethical to force people to give up against their will money that they (presumably) earned "fair and square"?

Assuming we find that ethical formula (which seems dubious to me but let it ride for the sake of discussion) the next question is, would the people willing to work under that system be "enough"? And then we have to ask "enough for what purpose?"

That gets into ethical and speculative issues that cut right to the heart of the human condition. Wendell Berry asked, "What are people for?" Bucky Fuller calculated that we could bring about a secular utopia for ~$25 billion by sometime in the 1970's if we applied our technology efficiently to supplying our physical needs. I'm open to the idea that we don't need open-ended profit motive to create a good and worthwhile global society (in fact even Adam Smith thought the capitalist "greed is good" phase would be just that: a temporary phase between the old system and the new.)

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

#422

Post by derivagral » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #130

tomp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how this works, how it avoids tax? Taking a $100 loan still means you’ll need an income of $100 (plus interest) future income and tax paid on this income... If you’re gonna say “they benefit in the extra capital gains between now and when the loan is repaid” - no, that can’t be it, that’s exactly equivalent to taking a $100 loan and investing in stocks instead (i.e. leverage).

1) You purchased $100 of SPY on June 15th, 2020 2) You're buying a house, and you need $100 today. 3) You sell $100 of SPY, and pay short-term capital gains (up to 37%) OR... 1) You purchased $100 of SPY on June 15th, 2020 2) You're buying a house, and you need $100 today. 3) You take a loan for $100 4) You wait until June 15th, 2021 and then sell $100 of your SPY holdings, paying long-term capital gains (15-20%) 5)…

The above basically arbitrages long-term vs short-term capgains for the price of 1 APY cycle, right? That's ~23% for short in the USA, and up to income-level (37%?) for short-term. Quite a big difference for a 2-5% APY loan that you close after 1 year, and the numbers would seem to scale better the higher you go.

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

#423

Post by frockington1 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

jlmorton wrote: post #108

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A wealth tax will fail for the same reason the income tax has failed. The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles and strut up to the tax authority saying, "See? I own very little." It becomes the legislative cat and mouse game, which governments lose when up against those with massive assets with which to lobby. There is not a good answer that I have found to the taxati…

> The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles In Elizabeth Warren's proposal, they would be subject to a 40% exit tax on the wealth that they moved. If they didn't pay the exit tax, that would be fraud.

Who would wait long enough after that bill passed to keep their wealth in America? The second it went through congress the money would start pouring out

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

#424

Post by fennecfoxen » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #415

fennecfoxen wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SALT deductions are a massive tax break for the wealthy. Your own partisanship that would see them restored is just as powerful, and the tax policy you advocate here is more regressive.

> SALT deductions are a massive tax break for the wealthy. How? The point of being able to deduct state and local taxes from federal ones is to devolve power to as local a level of government as possible. You've already paid the local authorities some taxes, so now you owe the federal government less. SALT limits do the opposite of that.

SALT is a tax break for the rich because state and local taxes are progressive, the rich pay more per dollar earned, and the rich are much less likely to be taking the standard deduction.

And when a state like New York or California decides to raises income taxes, it should not be understood that they are strengthening their participation in any power devolution scheme. It could work that way, but it doesn't. The Feds do not generally delegate their services like that.

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

#425

Post by a1369209993 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

gota wrote: post #141

failwhaleshark wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is a non-issue. Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? > I think its fine in context. That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It's the only number that matters and…

I think you're being downvoted our of tone, rather than content. So let me respond in reverse order, as the first point seems to be the most emotional for you >Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some West…

> If a rich person doesn't want to marry/have a relationship with a person that only likes them for their money... then don't.

I think the claim is that you don't know whether a person is only interested in you for your money, and that this colors every social interaction you have, romantic or otherwise, with a undertone of worrying that any generosity you display is being exploited by someone who will abandon you the moment the money runs out. Cf fair-weather friends, miserliness, etc.

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

#426

Post by naasking » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #316

pmoriarty wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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,…

> 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."

That's not what the OP said. They said that they're against a system that permits some to escape work while others never can. In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work at all. That's not at all the same as saying that everyone should have equal outcomes at all levels of the game, so much as saying that everyone should eventually be able to cross the same finish line.

> 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.

What you're failing to recognize is that wealth disparities are artificially created by government policies. The government isn't going around dictating to people what is or is not beautiful, or dictating what you must eat so you will be healthy, or what you must wear to be fashionable, but they are dictating what every person must pay into the system to keep it running.

It turns out, the people who are benefitting the most from the system are not paying into that system. If you're really interested in spreading freedom, then perhaps you should be more invested in the 99.9% whose financial freedoms are being curtailed in order to prop up that remaining 0.01%.

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

#427

Post by gugagore » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #317

gugagore wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You either missed my point or you are making my point.

It is hard to tell!

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

#428

Post by rascul » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #412

rascul wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Could you elaborate on why they wouldn't pay tax on their home?

Because there's a tax shelter for that case - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

Are you referring to this?

> The act permanently exempted from taxation the capital gains on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. This exemption applies to residences the taxpayer(s) lived in for at least two years over the last five. Taxpayers can only claim the exemption once every two years.

As I interpret the text, the middle-class homeowner will have to live in a home for two out of five years before they can claim an exemption. This matches the experience of my father, who sold his home after about four years and had to pay federal tax on the profit.

Is there something I'm missing or interpreting incorrectly?

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

#429

Post by teachingassist » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

weaksauce wrote: post #366

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…

I think the only thing that would solve almost all the issues is taxing the movement of money in all forms at a small rate. there have been some thoughts on it by people smarter than I but the gist is you tax money every time it moves at a tiny percentage rate. the rate is so small that for the commoners are not affected much but the people that trade money or move money off shore or buy up large commodities would be…

I would say in general that you want to motivate money to move as much as possible - and the problem with excessive wealth is that the money is not moving.

In an ideal world, I would tax money only when it is static.

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

#430

Post by naasking » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #317

gugagore wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary.

This is a pretty hilarious take IMO. Cooperation is literally the only reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. But sure, "overrated and unnecessary".