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

For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 504 posts

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#441

Post by nopzor »

nemothekid wrote: post #399
maccard wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pick any CEO in the top-100 corporations. Look at their income. Then look at their overall earnings. Warren Buffet is probably the easiest person to look at here. A quick google says that [0] he made $11m in 2016, and on that he paid $1.85m in federal income tax, and he claims a large portion of the remainder was paid in state tax. Even ignoring his state taxes, yes he paid a marginal rate of 16%, but he still paid…

>A quick google says that [0] he made $11m in 2016, The amount he made in 2016 is the point of contention. Sure he made 11m in income, but for that same year, BRK.A increased a staggering 25% in share price. Even if Buffet owns a 1% of BRK.A, that represents a paper gain of 4 Billion dollars. Now, sure, he might not have sold any stock so that won't count against his capital gains tax, but to me, its a bit deceptive…

when your house goes up by 100k in a year did you “make” 100k?

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#442

Post by refurb »

secabeen wrote: post #310
joshuamorton wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, according to this article, the 1% continue to pay a larger percent of their income. It is only once you move into the 1% of the 1% that the rate again decreases.

All of this is true, but it's beside the point. The perception in America is that the rich pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle class do. The marginal tax rates imply that, with middle class people paying either the 22% or 24% marginal rate, and rich people paying at at 35%+ rate. Thus, people think that we have a progressive system. However, if you look at the data in this chart, you can…

The percent of all taxes paid by the bottom 50% has been going down for the last few decades.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#443

Post by refurb »

lonelappde wrote: post #209
throwawaysea wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pro Publica link you provided does not show they "audit the poor instead". It shows that the IRS audits poor and rich at the same rates. Unfortunately it seems Pro Publica is succumbing to the same forces as other journalistic outlets and has started to engage in sensationalist headlines. Here is their title verbatim: > IRS: Sorry, but It’s Just Easier and Cheaper to Audit the Poor Here is the article's first sen…

Considering the rich have far higher tax liabilities and custom complex accounting (vs the poor whose income is usually reported by employers as an automatic check against self reports), "proportionate" auditing should be closer to per-dollar than per-person.

No, I wouldn’t expect that at all.

Audits are often driven by the type of deduction. Some are hard to get fraudulently (401k deduction) while others are easier (rental income).

A guy pulling in $500k in salary probably shouldn’t be audited, but someone pulling in $20k in adjusted rental income might need to be.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#444

Post by nemothekid »

nopzor wrote: post #441
nemothekid wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A quick google says that [0] he made $11m in 2016, The amount he made in 2016 is the point of contention. Sure he made 11m in income, but for that same year, BRK.A increased a staggering 25% in share price. Even if Buffet owns a 1% of BRK.A, that represents a paper gain of 4 Billion dollars. Now, sure, he might not have sold any stock so that won't count against his capital gains tax, but to me, its a bit deceptive…

when your house goes up by 100k in a year did you “make” 100k?

What's your point? If my house goes up by 100k in a year, in most US states, my property taxes would rise accordingly, whether or not I realized the true value of the home. Housing is a poor analogy as stocks are treated better than housing in this situation.

(California is not one of those states, due to Proposition 13, which is also very controversial and is argued to be one of the causes of California's rising housing costs)

When it comes to "if the rich are being taxed enough", you bring up a good point - if my home rises in value I pay more - however Buffet makes several billion in paper gains, and his taxes are largely unchanged.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#445

Post by RhysU »

ScottBurson wrote: post #416
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really what we should do with capital gains is allow people to deduct losses including inflation , so that we tax the total real value gain at the ordinary rate, and do so when the money is actually divested rather than only moved from one investment security to another (because one of the arguments for lower capital gains rates is that higher rates causes money to be locked into securities the investor wouldn't othe…

> what we should do with capital gains is allow people to deduct losses including inflation Yes, I've come to this conclusion too. The long-standing argument that capital gains rates should be low is about what happens, for example, if your gain on an investment exactly matches inflation: you'd pay taxes on it, but you haven't made any profit in real dollars. The right fix for that is not to divide your paper gain by…

Continuously compounding the prevailing t-bill rate for the holding duration of any asset is doable but sounds like a mess.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#446

Post by RhysU »

nemothekid wrote: post #444
nopzor wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when your house goes up by 100k in a year did you “make” 100k?

What's your point? If my house goes up by 100k in a year, in most US states, my property taxes would rise accordingly, whether or not I realized the true value of the home. Housing is a poor analogy as stocks are treated better than housing in this situation. (California is not one of those states, due to Proposition 13, which is also very controversial and is argued to be one of the causes of California's rising hou…

The house is a strawman of sorts. The rich pay property taxes too.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#447

Post by ScottBurson »

RhysU wrote: post #445
ScottBurson wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what we should do with capital gains is allow people to deduct losses including inflation Yes, I've come to this conclusion too. The long-standing argument that capital gains rates should be low is about what happens, for example, if your gain on an investment exactly matches inflation: you'd pay taxes on it, but you haven't made any profit in real dollars. The right fix for that is not to divide your paper gain by…

Continuously compounding the prevailing t-bill rate for the holding duration of any asset is doable but sounds like a mess.

You wouldn't want to do it by hand, but it's straightforward to program.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#448

Post by Forbo »

Forbo wrote: post #388
Joeri wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich spend a smaller share of their income, so a VAT scheme would in practice produce a regressive taxation scheme, with the lowest incomes paying relatively the most, because they have to spend all of their income.

What about a flat transactional tax that occurs any time money changes hands? I found this not too long ago and have been enamored with the idea: http://apttax.com/execsummary.php

Fuck me, right? Would be nice to know why this is seemingly such a shitty idea, but guess I'll never hear why.

Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate

#449

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

newen wrote: post #128
makomk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful. The two articles rely on vastly different cherry-picked definitions of who counts as rich, and neither claim is even remotely true anymore if you use the other definition. The top 1% are indeed audited at about the same rate as the working poor, but they also pay higher taxes than everyone else. This NYT article on the other hand picks out the top 400, who apparently pay lower taxes but are much more aggress…

Lower tax rates, not necessarily lower taxes.

True but all of this tax discussion is about perceived fairness. I may pay a few thousand and a billionaire will pay millions in taxes but if the overall tax rate is lower for the billionaire then I'm going to get upset. It's just human nature.
Post reply on HN