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

I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#51

Post by slang800 »

komali2 wrote: post #27
slang800 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.

What is your take on the reasoning he put in the article on why he doesn't "just" do that? > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commit…

That's not a reason why he can't do it, he's just saying that other people will need to do it too. I completely agree with him on that, he certainly can't do it alone. However, I think that he should set an example without waiting for others to join him.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#52

Post by docdeek »

atonse wrote: post #38
slang800 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.

Errr you can’t just hand the government money randomly. You have to owe it to them. It all has to add up in some way and be accounted for.

You can make a gift to the government to pay down the debt - they even take PayPal. https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#53

Post by NeedMoreTea »

gridlockd wrote: post #31
supergauntlet wrote: post #2

Sounds just like Warren Buffett: http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-mor... Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!): https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts…

> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% ...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw... (edit) To the people who don't get the point: Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do. People m…

Which is surely an argument to be careful to avoid evasion loopholes?

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#54

Post by JackFr »

tylerhou wrote: post #16
slang800 wrote: post #9

This is a great idea, but Eli doesn't need to wait for the law to be changed. He can donate as much as he wants directly to the US government right now. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

Except raising tax rates on everyone above a certain income is much more effective than one person voluntarily donating.

Similarly spending other people's money is more effective than spending ones own.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#55

Post by youareawesome »

moate wrote: post #46
youareawesome wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying. I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.

Senator Warren's plan would affect about 83,620 people[1]. I'm not saying you're point isn't valid, but your reference to the wealthiest 100 Americans is relatively meaningless to any discussion being had here. Also, the federal budget is composed of so many things[2], saying that taxing high wealth individuals couldn't affect it is a bit disingenuous. The bottom line is that if you have more money in the pool (eithe…

Just because it's not literally applicable doesn't mean it's meaningless, it emphasizes an important point that people overlook. The amount of wealth held by the top 80K is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total revenue of the federal government.

The greatest effect of this policy is that it will harm individual liberty. It will have nearly no effect on improving poverty or increasing social programs.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#56

Post by oceliker »

ninkendo wrote: post #8
jsnk wrote: post #3

Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?

If you were a military commander and someone proposed attacking an opposing force with a unified front, would your answer be "You're welcome to go out there and attack them yourself if you want to"? The point is to enact tax policy that applies to everyone, so that the sum total of the changes can actually make an impact. Saying "well people can always donate to the treasury" is a ridiculous way of dismissing it.

I'd actually love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars visit the war zone (though I know it's impractical).

The point is that nobody will take you seriously until you show some concrete action. It's easy to claim that you'll give your money willingly, if you know that it's extremely unlikely to happen.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#57

Post by NeedMoreTea »

slang800 wrote: post #42
atonse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Errr you can’t just hand the government money randomly. You have to owe it to them. It all has to add up in some way and be accounted for.

That's not true. There's a system for sending gifts to the treasury right here: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

It's a funny and forgotten relic. Many countries had similar schemes from around the same era.

There was a fashion to bequeath part of your estate to the government "to pay down the national debt". It was thought the patriotic thing to do. Obviously little impact was made on national debts. :)

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#58

Post by tylerhou »

youareawesome wrote: post #36
AlexandrB wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just further erodes the liberty of private citizens How does taxation do this? Taxation is a mechanism for funding the maintenance of an ordered society which enables extreme wealth creation. It's the wealthiest citizens who benefit the most from law enforcement, infrastructure, and national defence.

Taxation is well-acknowledged a trade-off between liberty and social responsibility. This is a new type of tax that has never been implemented in the US. If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that. So what is the goal?

> If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that.

[citation needed]

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#59

Post by oceliker »

supergauntlet wrote: post #33
gridlockd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% ...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw... (edit) To the people who don't get the point: Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do. People m…

Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect taxes?

The argument is that the 85% tax bracket was never really 85%, so it doesn't set a valid precedent.

Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

#60

Post by xvedejas »

youareawesome wrote: post #50
xvedejas wrote: post #35

But why raise income or wealth taxes when you can raise land value taxes or carbon/pollution taxes instead? My income does not harm anyone else, nor does being wealthy. But my hoarding of land does exclude land from others. My release of carbon / pollution into the atmosphere even more obviously harms other people. I think we're doing a huge disservice taxing the wrong things, when there are things that are useful to…

This is not an income tax, this is a wealth tax. Very different. You're taxed on money you are simply holding.

My comment still applies. Most wealth is invested. Investing is a good thing; it allows long-term thinking. Taxing investment, like taxing income, has a negative effect.
Post reply on HN