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

561–570 of 580 posts

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

#561

Post by fastball »

marcell wrote: post #535
fastball wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thresholds + only collateralized loans?

Pawnshops are collateralized loans for the poor. If the goal is to tax the rich, just be more direct and tax the rich. A wealth tax would work, no need for elaborate schemes.

> Pawnshops are collateralized loans for the poor.

Yes, that's why I said "thresholds". Not suggesting we tax small loans (or a small total value of loans taken out by an individual, regardless of the value of the individual loans).

> wealth tax

By many people's estimation, a wealth tax is an elaborate scheme, because is unrealized wealth really wealth?

If Bezos has $100B in stock but a sale of all that stock would only fetch $60B, do we still tax on $100B? How can someone's wealth be realistically and equitably calculated if it is not realized? Putting fairness aside for a minute, you are probably severely underestimating the overhead / elaborateness of such calculations.

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

#562

Post by silicon2401 »

naasking wrote: post #549
silicon2401 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody…

> That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody can retire, nobody can retire. No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period". > I don't hold that belief. Disparities and inequality are fundamental to human life When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude . Show me a disparity in bea…

> No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period".

Sure, I'd love that too. It's a great goal but not one that I remotely believe is actually achievable. Feel free to come back within the next 50 years and say you told me so if I end up being wrong.

> When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.

This is an unfounded claim. I'd love to see what data you're basing this on.

> Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude.

I can also easily show you disparities of that magnitude: just look at any of the many chronically ill patients that rack up medical expenses throughout their life, versus people who smoke and drink into their 80s and 90s without a problem and never see a doctor. You can easily use total lifetime medical cost as a metric if you want to meet your arbitrary disparity threshold. If you're in the "everyone's beautiful/healthy/smart in their own way" crowd then we have fundamentally different stances and there's little use talking further.

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

#563

Post by ryandrake »

rllearneratwork wrote: post #559
ryandrake wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no metro region on Earth where $1M/year can be considered middle class.

1M/year is roughly 500K after taxes in Bay Area. Starter house is bad school district (means you need to pay 25K-45K per year per kid for private school) is over 1M.

Sure, but a 1M mortgage is about 50K a year at today's rates. Let's say 30K for home upkeep, 10K to keep a car on the road, 10K for utilities, 20K for food and dining.

So 500K after tax - 90K private school for two kids - 50K mortgage payment - 30K - 10K - 10K - 20K = 290K in totally disposable post-tax income. Still not even remotely close to middle class.

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

#564

Post by iso1631 »

Nbox9 wrote: post #273
iso1631 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most of those will be in retirement plans which I assume aren't taxed?

If you are in the US you should brush up on your personal finances.

I'm not, maybe you should brush up on the rest of the world existing

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

#565

Post by 8note »

tomp wrote: post #117
fairity wrote: post #109

One of the primary mechanisms for tax avoidance is taking out loans against appreciated capital assets to avoid realizing capital gains. What's stopping the average citizen from exploiting this tax avoidance strategy? For example, every time I try to submit an order to sell stock that results in short-term capital gains, my broker should be asking me whether I want to take out a collateralized loan instead. If there…

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).

Chances are it doesn't, but the IRS won't go after rich people if they claim they don't have any taxes to pay.

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

#566

Post by ncmncm »

ffggvv wrote: post #529
ncmncm wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would like to think so, but if we compare Finnish to American payrolls, you would find instead that instead top management gets less, if anybody. But there is more... Economic prosperity is always most sensitive to what the bottom quarter gets paid, because they are who are obliged to spend what they get immediately. The greater general prosperity that results benefits everybody else, in sum, more than the increa…

you didn’t actually provide any proof to disprove my claim and then said i was 100% wrong. either way i don’t think we’re aspiring to be finland.

Which part of, "This was recently demonstrated in Seattle, in practice." were you not able to follow?

100% wrong, and evidently you don't consider it good news.

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

#567

Post by ffggvv »

ncmncm wrote: post #566
ffggvv wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you didn’t actually provide any proof to disprove my claim and then said i was 100% wrong. either way i don’t think we’re aspiring to be finland.

Which part of, " This was recently demonstrated in Seattle, in practice. " were you not able to follow? 100% wrong, and evidently you don't consider it good news.

just saying that and getting angry doesnt make it true.

urban areas all boomed due to the roaring economy up until covid, especially powered by the large growth in the tech sector there and corporate tax cuts (and seattle's low state tax making it an attractive place to be locate). theres no evidence seattle magically helped everyone by raising minimum wages.

likely seattle did fine despite the minimum wage increase, not because of them. Especially since you have to pay that much to attract workers there anyway because of the insane living costs. Which partially ballooned due to artificial price controls like that. and theres no measuring how many people got their jobs automated away or didnt get hired because of the wage increases.

and seattle has also had an explosion of homelessness and violent crime.

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

#568

Post by toddh »

If you read the article, they are calculating a fictitious thing they call the “true tax rate”. This is the tax paid compared to the growth in assets.

That is not an income tax. It’s a wealth tax. It feels like conflating the debt and the deficit. Effectively you would have to have a deemed sale of all assets at the end of the year and pay tax on the gain/loss.

I agree that the rich have access to tax planning machinations that most tax payers do not. But this doesn’t bluster their argument.

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

#569

Post by rascul »

ineptech wrote: post #552
rascul wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how our interpretations differ. You showed that there are ways for middle-class homeowners to pay the tax. Sell the house after less than five years and don't use the proceeds to purchase another house. That scenario seems to happen often enough from what I see, and it appears that the IRS will be collecting money in those cases.

> Sell the house after less than five years You need to live there two years, not five[0]. > You showed that there are ways for middle-class homeowners to pay the tax... I said... "on their home". If you move out of it and rent it out, it's not your home anymore, it's an investment property, which is taxed differently, as it should be. Regular people (not real estate investors or landlords, people who just own one ho…

> You need to live there two years, not five[0].

Thank you. That wasn't clear to me. I interpreted it as you needed to have it for five years and live in it two out of those five. Makes me wonder why my father had to pay tax when he sold his house. But then this is just by memory, he doesn't have his 1040 anymore.

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

#570

Post by rllearneratwork »

ryandrake wrote: post #563
rllearneratwork wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1M/year is roughly 500K after taxes in Bay Area. Starter house is bad school district (means you need to pay 25K-45K per year per kid for private school) is over 1M.

Sure, but a 1M mortgage is about 50K a year at today's rates. Let's say 30K for home upkeep, 10K to keep a car on the road, 10K for utilities, 20K for food and dining. So 500K after tax - 90K private school for two kids - 50K mortgage payment - 30K - 10K - 10K - 20K = 290K in totally disposable post-tax income. Still not even remotely close to middle class.

sure 1M is OK in SF Bay area (you need to plan for retirement too). But even based on your calculations suddenly 500K is not enough to allow a middle class lifestyle.
Post reply on HN