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

We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 580 posts

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

#481

Post by ffggvv »

LatteLazy wrote: post #431
ksec wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining. WOW! Never heard of this as an argument. I think it is a very good one for working class.

(not OP) There is good evidence that when wages are public knowledge minorities and women get paid more too... https://time.com/5353848/salary-pay-transparency-work/

likely everyone else just gets paid less in the interest of fairness.. this already happens at tech companies like stripe. "Oh we dont care how many competing offers you have or how qualified you are. we pay everyone the same in the name of "fairness".

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

#482

Post by HWR_14 »

eplanit wrote: post #55
itsoktocry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Large grain of salt required. What exactly do I need to "take" with a large grain of salt? Have you been in seclusion for the past 20 years? I'm pretty sure we're at the point where the burden of proof is on the billionaires to demonstrate they aren't funnelling away their money, not vice versa.

Evidence isn't necessary for one who is already convinced. However, there is a lot that says that the 1% actually pay the vast majority of taxes collected: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2021/04/05/op-ed-top-1-inc... https://howmuch.net/articles/high-income-americans-pay-major... https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bott...

> , there is a lot that says that the 1% actually pay the vast majority of taxes collected:

What a strange argument. I will personally pay 95% of all taxes in the US if I somehow make me make 99% of all income. Which seems fairly equivalent to your point, except both of my numbers are slightly exaggerated.

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

#483

Post by lotsofpulp »

ksec wrote: post #414
bwestergard wrote: post #7

In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining.

>eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining. WOW! Never heard of this as an argument. I think it is a very good one for working class.

Price transparency is necessary for the proper functioning of any market. Otherwise there is no clean signal of the supply and demand curves.

Lack of price transparency results to inefficient markets, e.g. someone consistently ending up with outsized profits.

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

#484

Post by jeffreyrogers »

madsbuch wrote: post #308
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. It seems to work for Finland. In some countries it would probably make you a kidnapping target.

The kidnapping problem is on a whole other level. Denmark is known for "leaving babies in strollers outside of cafes". The Nordic social-liberal countries (Finland included) solve this problem not by opacity but by having social support and trust.

I know that, but you mostly don't get to choose whether you live in such a country or not. Everyone would choose to live in a country like that if they could.

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

#485

Post by musicale »

> Their wealth derives from the skyrocketing value of their assets, like stock and property. Those gains are not defined by U.S. laws as taxable income unless and until the billionaires sell.

Taxing assets seems like it could be bad for the 99%, for example taxing people out of their homes and eating up their savings and retirement assets.

It's reminiscent of how "financial aid" tacitly assumes that one's parents should simply sell their house and then give the money to the university.

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

#486

Post by jl2718 »

WalterBright wrote: post #465
jl2718 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. $3000 yearly passive loss exemption. Let's say you operate a business netting you $1B and then buy a $1B pokemon card, which you sell for $0. You owe tax on $1B - $3000.

If you have $2b in wealth, and lose $1b of it, you do not owe taxes on $1b.

At some point they may have paid taxes on that $2B asset distribution, but of course they still have it, so maybe they took out a $1B loan to pay the IRS. Now they sell the asset, and they are lucky that it fetches $1B, enough to pay the loan. Now they have $0, and a huge sigh of relief. Could have been much worse.

So you see, a lot of these equity-based billionaires would owe more than they have without these 'loopholes', and some obviously not much with them.

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

#487

Post by fennecfoxen »

karmajunkie wrote: post #371
fennecfoxen wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time someone tries to make a tax targeting the ultra rich, it ends up hurting the moderately wealthy instead. Governments around the tax the middle class, because that's where the money is. Our current spending campaign will result in substantial tax increases for the middle class; the only real questions are when, and how much (less if it's sooner, more if it's later).

> because that's where the money is. Except that its not. Did you actually read the article?

Did you read the HN community guidelines?

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

#488

Post by whakim »

syshum wrote: post #162
gota wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information. To your points: > gold-diggers I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their mone…

>>but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else and this is largely the primary difference between American Culture /Politics and the rest of the world, specifically European nations European nations have always been more collectivist in nature, where the US was founded on Individualism, and Individual Freedom. There are signs that the US is losing this desire, and it saddens me because unlike you I…

The framework of individualism vs. collectivism is a complicated (and pretty fraught!) sociological construct. Scholars hotly debate whether individualism/collectivism applies to individuals, societies, or some mix of the two. Individualism also exists along a spectrum (if it even exists at all!) While there might be some connection here, it seems a vast oversimplification of cultures/individual attitudes to say that GP's view on Finnish taxation mechanics is a direct result of individualism/collectivism.

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

#489

Post by kasey_junk »

LargeWu wrote: post #258
jvanderbot wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at the countless issues raised by people being unable to exercise stock options for tax reasons. It’s clear that taxing stock is NOT unprecedented. It is unprecedented to tax someone on the value of their unsold stock. That's what a wealth tax would be: We force someone to pay taxes on something (their holdings / net worth) simply because it is valuable, but not necessarily because it was liquidated into cash…

When Jeff Bezos buys a yacht, he doesn't buy it with Amazon stock. He cashes out that stock and then buys the yacht. I think a fair approach would be to use their total net worth as the threshhold for which wealth taxes apply, but taxes are only paid when that stock is turned into actual money, or equivalent. If you're not cashing out your company holdings, if your wealth is only "on paper", then you owe nothing. But…

He almost certainly doesn’t cash out his stock because of the tax impact. He gets a loan collateralized by his shares.

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

#490

Post by kasey_junk »

mrkurt wrote: post #91
dataangel wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't pay capital gains taxes until you sell the stock. The IRS only taxes you when you cash out. Presumably the articles will show the wealthy "cashing out" via loopholes that evade the tax.

The trick is to cash out by dying. You can do this by living off loans against your unrealized capital gains. These then get paid off at your death, and there are all kinds of "simple" ways to keep estate untaxed.

What I’m curious about is at what level of funds flows does it make sense to start using these strategies. The average faang employees income is dominated by shares but a) they weren’t granted in the distant past when the prices were lower so the tax difference isn’t big between income and b) they have different risk tolerances as Bezos can lose half of his net worth and still be unable to spend all his money before he dies.

There must be some level where these strategies make sense but articles like this rarely point them out.

Post reply on HN