Live data from Hacker News

How to convert between wealth and income tax

paulgraham.com

611–620 of 727 posts

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol nah. The assets are held by a trust. The trust, being a friendly bunch, loan you capital which it gets by liquidating assets, at a rate of 0% with “don’t worry about it” default terms. You’ll probably pay a management fee for each loan. You croak, your heirs become the beneficiaries of the trust. Rinse, repeat.

In this case, the beneficiaries of the trust pay income tax on the money they receive from the trust.

You don’t pay income tax on loans, and the trust exists in a place with no CGT.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#612

> It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2] But it's not "mathematically the same thing". Taking the 100 dollars allegory Paul raises, for that allegory to be based in reality, someone would need to have 20x their annual salary in wealth. T…

The fatal flaw in PG's argument is that is doesn't mention spending at all.

If you're spending your entire income on things like food and rent, then a 1% wealth tax corresponds to 0% income tax.

If you're spending your entire income on investment, then there's a calculation like PG's to be made to compute an equivalent income tax rate. But then we're talking about someone who doesn't need the money. This isn't even about rich vs. poor - you can have a high income and spend it all as you make it, like if you throw a huge party every week, or make a yearly trip into space. But if not, then it's just an ever growing number on your bank statement, and the only reason you care about it being 20% higher is because you're comparing it to other people's bank statements.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allocating money through the government has not been a particularly successful strategy for improving the overall standard of living. What are you even basing this assumption on? Just quickly comparing the highest ranking countries by Human Development Index with the highest government budgets per capita and the highest income tax rates would, if anything, support the opposite conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

This is potentially a long conversation; but why would you start with rankings like this, which only go back a relatively short time? Broadly speaking, human welfare got a lot better in the last three hundred years, due to productivity improvements that were tied to things like property rights, joint stock companies, availability of credit, &c. We haven't really found a good alternative to it. It may seem to you that…

The HDI ranking has been published for 36 years now. And for many of those countries I would feel confident claiming the trend goes back to at least WW2, altough you would of course have to use other, contemporary metrics to support that to get a rigorous analysis.

If the initial step in your theory about human wellfare is to selectively ignore the last 35 or 75 years of history in the highest wellfare countries on earth, I think you should at least consider the possibility that your theory might be somewhat out of date.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#614
Taking advice from Paul Graham on why you should not impose a wealth tax is like taking advice from the neighbours cat on why you should allow him to crap on your lawn.

His argument is incredibly disingenuous; the sort of people who will be affected by a wealth tax are the sort of people who find ways of avoiding paying income tax, or indeed any tax at all if possible.

It makes me very angry when these billionaires who build up enormous wealth, partaially by avoiding paying the taxes that fund the infrastructure that help them build their wealth, get upset at people who suggest that maybe they should pay something back to society.

Paul Graham should, maybe, stick to blogging about tech, because when he gets into politics he really shows his true colours... and it ain't pretty.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd much prefer simply stopping that cost basis reset instead of implementing a wealth tax. Neither of these would really work against the people you actually want it to work against. If you don't have a basis reset then they just do a transaction that has the same effect, e.g. create a new corporation owned by the recipient and then have it repeatedly enter into slightly favorable transactions with the one owned b…

That scheme still wouldn't work. When that new corporation is first formed, it's near worthless. After the series of favorable deals, the value of each share in that corporation goes up. Thus it still incurs capital gains taxes. Of course people will try to cheat taxes, but they'll try to cheat any form of tax: income, capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc. People are good to try and evade taxes regardless of the tax…

> After the series of favorable deals, the value of each share in that corporation goes up. Thus it still incurs capital gains taxes.

Only if you sell the shares, which they easily resolve by not doing.

> People are good to try and evade taxes regardless of the tax mechanism.

Which is why you should use the ones that are less susceptible to it rather than the ones that are more susceptible to it. Trying to identify the country in which "profit" is earned in an international supply chain, or value non-fungible assets not undergoing transactions, are easy to game. "You pay a given percentage when you buy something" is hard to game.

> Consumption taxes are regressive: a sales tax is a flat tax that taxes a billion on their $10 latte the same as a poor person.

The existing "progressive" income tax and benefits programs do worse than that: The billionaire pays less on $10 in marginal income than a poor person, because the taxes and benefits phase outs result in absurdly high marginal rates on the poor.

> Consumption also doesn't scale linearly with wealth: most billionaires don't consume 1000x as much as a millionaire.

Only if you're looking for it in the wrong place. A billionaire isn't going to buy a billion dollars in lattes, they're going to invest in some business ventures, which in turn are going to spend the money on equipment and vehicles and utilities and so on, i.e. consumption. You don't get a return on capital by sticking it in a mattress, you get a return by spending it to build or operate something.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#616
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loans against unrealized gains should just be taxed directly as income. Not indirectly creating more loopholes. Same way stock buybacks should be taxed at the same rate as short term capital gains.

Yes let's encourage more risky behavior! Absolutely braindead takes. This sort of proposal would establish a minimum 35 % return in any project. Thus halting investment entirely Let's put this in perspective. I'm currently going to collaterize a few hundred thousand in equity to take a loan to develop homes in my very housing short city of Portland. My calculated return is 40%. This is an excellent return.. It this w…

If I buy a home, I’m likely going to use saved post-tax income. What makes the money you’re using special?

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even that is subject to shenanigans... above a certain level of wealth the overhead of establishing companies, tax residencies, and complex debt arrangements become a rounding error. Some of the mechanisms are loopholes, that might be closed l. But many start to interact with international business regulations that exist for considered reasons, and are harder to change even if it is serving as a loophole. You end up…

Sanction them and their companies. Sanction countries that accept these anti-society misanthropes. Bar them from the US and any territories, encourage our allies to bar them as well. Investigate those companies for crimes to the full extent of the law. Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing som…

I don't have any more to fear from politically-influential private-sector billionaires than I do from the government enforcing a sanctions regime.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#618
post #407
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax. I consider this fine, because proponents of a wealth tax consistently omit that it will ultimately be the middle class who pays the tax... the ultra-wealthy and wealthy can afford sophisticated strategies to render a wealth tax ineffectiv…

If the ultra wealthy move out a few people will lose their jobs (their family office, some accountants, some property managers will work the same job for someone else). But overall people will not be worse off. We have been doing this exact experiment in Seattle sine 2024 when Bozos moved out. And last month Howard Schultz moved out as well. The sky did not fall. Another example- did the average Londoner get better o…

London is a highly housing-constrained city, so the most important way of answering this question is, what affect did freezing Russian oligarch money in Jan 2022 have on the London housing market? If it made housing cheaper or otherwise more available, it was good for the average Londoner; and if it did the opposite it was bad. I have no idea which effect dominated or if it even made an appreciable difference compared to everything else that affects the London housing market.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easiest thing would be to not have any tiers of consumption. The stuff people "need" to spend money on such as food and housing would be handled by an automatic rebate, effectively a UBI. No other welfare, assistance, etc. What you earn you keep, unless you spend it, then you pay tax.

Boy, that's going to suck for people whose credit situation has shut them out of most traditional housing situations. Or people who rely on what other people don't consider food for sustenance, for whatever reason (protein powder? multivitamins? supplies to grow/produce your own foodstuffs?). Just as examples.

> Boy, that's going to suck for people whose credit situation has shut them out of most traditional housing situations.

There are lots of apartments available with no credit check. They're more often of lower quality, but if your situation is such that you want to spend less on rent and have more left for something else (like paying off your debts), why is it a problem for people to be able to choose that?

It's the status quo that screws them, because the government often pays out $1000/month or more in housing assistance but it's required to go directly to the landlord, and then if you have money problems but could live with family or are willing to take in a crappy low-rent studio apartment for a while, you can't take that money and use it to fix your situation instead because if you tried to do that the government takes it away.

> Or people who rely on what other people don't consider food for sustenance, for whatever reason (protein powder? multivitamins? supplies to grow/produce your own foodstuffs?).

Isn't this the opposite? If you give them a UBI then they can buy whatever they want. If you give them paternalistic micromanaged benefits like SNAP then they can buy carbonated high fructose corn syrup in a can but not vitamins or farming supplies.

Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax

#620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to understand why someone would even propose taking from the rich and complain about inequality, Because they want to take back what was taken from them.

Why is that the case?

Trivially follows from the premise.
Post reply on HN