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

Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 504 posts

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#471

Post by valval »

xorcist wrote: post #411
valval wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line of thinking we’re trying to get across to you here is best put like this I find; even if 99% of the village thinks it’s a good idea to march into the most productive individual’s house and rob it clean, it doesn’t become morally right to do so.

Even if that individual moved into the village knowing perfectly well that this is the rule in this village? It is not unreasonable to me that you have to pitch in for common goods if you live in a village, and should you refuse to take part in this you might find yourself in a situation where you have to either move out of the village or forfeit your share.

I don't think "you should just escape the oppression" is good advice per se. I think it's victim blaming, in today's terminology.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#472

Post by jalapenos »

johngladtj wrote: post #452
zarzavat wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, wealthy people pay capital gains tax not income tax. People who pay higher rate income tax are just normal people with a larger salary. Not every country works like this however.

The net tax rate after subsidies is essentially zero% for the bottom 50% in income terms.

Basically: if you're in the middle, you're lunch.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#473

Post by valval »

Olreich wrote: post #395
waihtis wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not, it's literally what it is. Per default, accumulating wealth contains risks for the individual attempting to do so, and increasingly more and more of the wealth is stripped away while reducing none of the risk. Thats absolutely theft.

Theft is illegally taking something. Taxes are part of the legal system. Literally not theft. Ethically is it right to increase the risk to accumulate wealth? That depends on what you buy with that risk. It’s well-established that people will take risks for fun, and they’ll take significantly more risk when security for themselves and their family is on the line. Folks with hundreds of millions or billions in assets…

You reveal how unserious your thought process is in the very first sentence. It's impossible for me to read the rest of your text.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#474

Post by StackRanker3000 »

valval wrote: post #470
CleanRoomClub wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Ayn Rand as much as the next HN consumer, but let’s be a bit more judicious in how we apply her ideals. If you earned your wealth through driving on public roads, after receiving a public education, without it actually being blatantly stolen due to a public police force, etc etc etc. Then it is also your responsibility to pay for these items so that they dan continue to be used for future generation.

If you're in eternal debt to the society you were fortunate or unfortunate enough to be born into since before you were lucid, when exactly is the cycle going to be broken? Public roads can be taxed by use. Public education should be paid by people who participate. You apply an "if" conditional here in a manner that's morally correct in my opinion. It's just that even if you didn't partake in those activities, you're…

> If you're in eternal debt to the society you were fortunate or unfortunate enough to be born into since before you were lucid, when exactly is the cycle going to be broken?

Never. No human being has ever thrived in total isolation, and no one’s accomplishments are solely their own. You may not like it, but you are unavoidably part of a society (even if you move into the wilderness and never interact with another person again, you were still raised in one). You wouldn’t have been able to gather whatever resources you’ve managed to amass without that society, and in return it requires you to share the burden of helping everyone else thrive as well.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#475

Post by psd1 »

valval wrote: post #473
Olreich wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft is illegally taking something. Taxes are part of the legal system. Literally not theft. Ethically is it right to increase the risk to accumulate wealth? That depends on what you buy with that risk. It’s well-established that people will take risks for fun, and they’ll take significantly more risk when security for themselves and their family is on the line. Folks with hundreds of millions or billions in assets…

You reveal how unserious your thought process is in the very first sentence. It's impossible for me to read the rest of your text.

The irony of claiming that "taxation is LITERALLY theft" is literally the ONLY serious position.

Reality doesn't care about your feelings.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#476

Post by SR2Z »

adastra22 wrote: post #388
chii wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They would go so far as to pick a materially worse deal that allowed them to pay no taxes, over a higher payout that required some taxes paid. I find that hard to believe. I highly suspect that the "materially worse" deal you speak of is simply less liquid cash, but more retained wealth.

In this particular case that I had in mind when writing this comment, they were arguing for foregoing a tranch of money entirely because it would be taxed at income rates instead of long term capital gains, which would make their %age tax ratio go up, and massively increase the total tax paid. They would have rather foregone that income entirely, then be forced to pay full income taxes on it. Of course they didn’t ar…

It's nuts that we treat LTCG and income differently. We should adjust LTCG for inflation and then charge the amortized taxes whenever folks realize gains.

"but then taxes would be too high!" yes, so we should also reduce income taxes when we do this.

Quit flogging the upper-middle class to pay for the technically unemployed rich.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#477

Post by sooheon »

SR2Z wrote: post #476
adastra22 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case that I had in mind when writing this comment, they were arguing for foregoing a tranch of money entirely because it would be taxed at income rates instead of long term capital gains, which would make their %age tax ratio go up, and massively increase the total tax paid. They would have rather foregone that income entirely, then be forced to pay full income taxes on it. Of course they didn’t ar…

It's nuts that we treat LTCG and income differently. We should adjust LTCG for inflation and then charge the amortized taxes whenever folks realize gains. "but then taxes would be too high!" yes, so we should also reduce income taxes when we do this. Quit flogging the upper-middle class to pay for the technically unemployed rich.

Take it a step further and just remove income tax and tax wealth at rest.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#478

Post by morbicer »

labcomputer wrote: post #435
morbicer wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if we don't strip poor people of any chance of getting out of poverty they won't turn to communism. If you chase an animal in the corner, it will fight back. You can shoot it and win but don't be surprised if the situation repeats.

The problem is that communism (as it is practiced) forces everyone into poverty, except for the tiny fraction of the population who comprise the elite of the politburo.

Yes, communism is horrible, I totally agree. What I am alluding to is that some form of social democracy can bring long term stability, thus minimizing the risk of people radicalizing.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#479

Post by ripe »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #442
ripe wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our healthcare is horribly wasteful and inefficient. But since the US government isn't in charge of it for most people, you can't blame them here. Our ultra-capitalist healthcare "system" achieved this spectacular waste all by itself.

The US does not have an "ultra-capitalist" healthcare system. Its healthcare system is heavily regulated and subsidized and many of those regulations are bought and paid for by the incumbents to prevent competition, i.e. the thing that allows private systems to be efficient. You can't just call something "capitalism" while regulating it into market concentration and expect that to work.

You're making a "no true Scotsman" argument. This is, in fact, how capitalism works whenever you fail to regulate it. Rent-seeking and regulatory capture is a feature, not a bug.

Re: Buy, Borrow, Die – Explained

#480

Post by adastra22 »

SR2Z wrote: post #476
adastra22 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case that I had in mind when writing this comment, they were arguing for foregoing a tranch of money entirely because it would be taxed at income rates instead of long term capital gains, which would make their %age tax ratio go up, and massively increase the total tax paid. They would have rather foregone that income entirely, then be forced to pay full income taxes on it. Of course they didn’t ar…

It's nuts that we treat LTCG and income differently. We should adjust LTCG for inflation and then charge the amortized taxes whenever folks realize gains. "but then taxes would be too high!" yes, so we should also reduce income taxes when we do this. Quit flogging the upper-middle class to pay for the technically unemployed rich.

It’s not nuts, it’s actually quite purposefully thought through. Profit gets taxed once at 15-20% in the form of corporate income tax, the taxed again at LTCG tax rates. The combined total is similar to the individual tax rate for high earners.

If you tax LTCG at income rates, then you will just start incentivizing other schemes to return profits to shareholders, which is going to be economically inefficient, harder to manage, lead to consolidated ownership structures, fewer liquidity events for small shareholders, greater inequality, and less prosperity.

Long term capital gains having lower tax rates isn’t feature, not a bug, for everyone not just wealth managers.

Post reply on HN