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

Who died and left the US $7B?

sherwood.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 589 posts

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#571

Post by dixie_land »

jewayne wrote: post #470
dixie_land wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would capital gains be taxed in the first place? It's simply double taxation on the income

I always ask myself, "What was a government service necessary in order to obtain this money?" Since there are no capital gains without all manners of law enforcement, the answer is yes here. A capital gain is not a tax on the original income. It's a tax on the capital gain, which would be impossible without the rest of us.

Capital gains do depend on participants of the market and economy in general. But each and every one of them has already been taxed. I simply stating the obvious that money should be taxed exactly once, not so many times.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#572

Post by nemothekid »

kemitche wrote: post #460
nemothekid wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only issue I can forsee is that every loan, except a credit card, personal loan, and student loan, is typically loaned against an asset. I guess you could make carve outs for mortgages and auto loans.

Why would there need to be a carve out for home/auto loans? 1. No one really borrows against the value of their (paid off) car. 2. Property taxes already, generally, are against the assessed value of the home, so it's already happening for that case. There are some minimal exceptions, like CA Prop 13, of course, but generally speaking, if I want to take out a second mortgage or something, my home's value is already a…

I guess I'm not sure how this mechanism would work without being abused. I assumed when I take out a car loan, the bank is giving me money, in which the collateral is the car or home.

But I now assume the tax would be on the assessed change value of the asset, for which a new car or home would be 0, so no tax.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#573

Post by VirusNewbie »

hgomersall wrote: post #559
VirusNewbie wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Between 2008 and 2020 M2 pretty much doubled and prices barely moved anywhere Except Real estate prices more than doubled. Also the Dow went from ~11k to 32k . So almost triple.

And yet the price of a cabbage stayed exactly the same. Oh, we also had close to zero interest rates, might that have something to do with peoples' appetite for higher mortgages and shares over bonds?

>Oh, we also had close to zero interest rates, might that have something to do with

YES! YES! YOU ARE CORRECT, THAT'S MY POINT. Lowering the interest rates is how you EXPAND THE MONEY SUPPLY.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#574

Post by munksbeer »

kaibee wrote: post #277
jjav wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Renters do not pay property tax in the US. There's a simple way to visualize why is not true: You're renting a property for $1000/mo. Whatever the owner is paying for property taxes, you don't know. Then, property taxes go up by $200/mo. Do you think your rent won't go up by at least $200/mo as a direct consequence of the tax increase? Because it will. Because the renter is of course paying for all costs, including…

> Then, property taxes go up by $200/mo. Do you think your rent won't go up by at least $200/mo as a direct consequence of the tax increase? Because it will. Because the renter is of course paying for all costs, including those taxes. So, before property taxes went up, the landlord could have raised rents by $200/month, but hadn't because..?

>So, before property taxes went up, the landlord could have raised rents by $200/month, but hadn't because..?

Look at it a different way. If the $200/month was a new tax that all renters had to pay, what would happen?

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#575

Post by hgomersall »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #573
hgomersall wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the price of a cabbage stayed exactly the same. Oh, we also had close to zero interest rates, might that have something to do with peoples' appetite for higher mortgages and shares over bonds?

>Oh, we also had close to zero interest rates, might that have something to do with YES! YES! YOU ARE CORRECT, THAT'S MY POINT. Lowering the interest rates is how you EXPAND THE MONEY SUPPLY.

But that doesn't suggest that the critical variable is money supply. It just suggests there's a correlation. There are plenty of ways of increasing the money supply that does nothing at all. Pursuade the fed to give me a trillion trillion dollars and I'll show you by not spending it (though I might spend a few mil for keeping it safe, but that's not going to do much).

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#576

Post by xpe »

bawolff wrote: post #276
xpe wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Phrasing it as a question and waiting for the gears to turn can be a good strategy.

I still don't really understand your point. I don't think anyone disagrees that monopolies and other anticompetitive behaviour is a thing that exists.

> I don't think anyone disagrees that monopolies and other anticompetitive behaviour is a thing that exists.

There are people who never learned this or have essentially forgotten it. Some ideologies bury such truths.

Among business/tech circles, there is a fairly common disdain of regulation. People can conveniently forget that self-interest taken too far can destroy the conditions that make competition work.

It is one thing to criticize a powerful monopoly that isn’t you. It is another thing to say “Oh. Maybe what I’m doing is part of the problem.”

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#577

Post by mbrumlow »

tsimionescu wrote: post #448
mbrumlow wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the reasoning. But the value did not really move. As the estate is family owned. The family did not die, a member of it did.

By this logic, if I sell you a car, no money moved, because both the car and the money are still owned by the both of us. Or at least, if you're brother takes your car, you can't ask the state to give it back to you, as the car didn't really move, it's still in the family. A family is not a single entity under any law in any country I know of. Certainly not in the USA or anywhere in Europe.

Are you going to drive me to work everyday after the transaction?

The difference is the kids have been spending estate money and have access to all the assets the estate controls. It make no sense that would change because a member of the family died.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#578

Post by VirusNewbie »

hgomersall wrote: post #575
VirusNewbie wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Oh, we also had close to zero interest rates, might that have something to do with YES! YES! YOU ARE CORRECT, THAT'S MY POINT. Lowering the interest rates is how you EXPAND THE MONEY SUPPLY.

But that doesn't suggest that the critical variable is money supply. It just suggests there's a correlation. There are plenty of ways of increasing the money supply that does nothing at all. Pursuade the fed to give me a trillion trillion dollars and I'll show you by not spending it (though I might spend a few mil for keeping it safe, but that's not going to do much).

If you literally buried the money then yes, you are correct but in effect that is basically destroying it.

But what would you do to not spend it? Put it in the bank? Buy bonds?

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#579

Post by hgomersall »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #578
hgomersall wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that doesn't suggest that the critical variable is money supply. It just suggests there's a correlation. There are plenty of ways of increasing the money supply that does nothing at all. Pursuade the fed to give me a trillion trillion dollars and I'll show you by not spending it (though I might spend a few mil for keeping it safe, but that's not going to do much).

If you literally buried the money then yes, you are correct but in effect that is basically destroying it. But what would you do to not spend it? Put it in the bank? Buy bonds?

The point is that lots of monetary operations are consumption neutral, including buying bonds. The only thing that actually matters from a price perspective is when a real resource gets consumed. People having more money can push the price of real goods up for sure, but the marginal propensity to consume by individuals goes down with higher relative wealth.

There's another very important effect which is the spending on things that matter induces taxation (employment taxes to deliver the thing, sales taxes etc). This is a geometric series reducing the money supply on every transaction of real goods. What matters is the flow, not the stock.

https://new-wayland.com/blog/structural-deficits-are-deflati...

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#580

Post by [deleted] »

bluGill wrote: post #473
bialpio wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, how much money do you think is needed to survive ~55 years ("savings by 30" + life expectancy around 85ish = 55yrs) without working? Also, please spell out biggest assumptions you're making.

Eat rice and beans $50/month. Live in a $200 tent with a warm sleeping bag replace every 10 years. every year you get $100 for clothing at goodwill (walmart for underware) No other possessions. don't get sick as you don't have health care, but you should on average live to 70 or so [5-10 years less than average with health care], assuming you are not unlucky. so about $70/ month. I wouldn't want to live like that and…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN