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

When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#71

Post by icebraining »

jazzyk wrote: post #30
chollida1 wrote: post #2

I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…

The solution is just not that complicated: 1. For individuals, simple tax code which does not distinguish where your income came from, but does keep income brackets (not flat tax). 2. For businesses, distinguish between: - "US-based" company which would pay 10% corporate tax. A US-based company would need to have at least 66% of employees based in the US and/or at least 50% of the products/services produced in the US…

A corporate tax on what? Income, profit, dividends, expatriation?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#72

Post by chirau »

4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #36
tici_88 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code." I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot. The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a signif…

A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever; if you tax e.g. 20% of earnings ,do you believe people who earn $30k a year are impacted the same way as people earning $200k or more? Sure, those who earn more pay more, but it hits them in "extra" earnings, while the poor are taxed on money they need to survive. A (very) progressive tax rate with a few ways of reducing the tax based on social (e.g. number of children,…

A "flat rate" can also be tiered. In this case I'd take it to mean a flat rate on all money earned during a time period. Whether income or capital gains, dividends, assets or whatever, you are still giving up x% of whatever you earned that year.

So even when tiered, a person earning under some amount in total might get a lower tax rate than a person earning a higher amount but it is still flat.

The "flat tax" would be taxed on all jurisdiction. So call it a "universal flat tax". That way, there is no persuasion to register in a foreign country and it would dissuade multi geography registrations as you would just be taxed in multiples by each territory.

To avoid double taxation, perhaps, a company can register in multiple countries but since the tax is the same everywhere, the portion of the x% taxed would be proportionally divided to the territories.

This assumes of course that the whole world agrees on one tax policy and tax havens are eliminated. :)

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#73

Post by mrob »

cbcoutinho wrote: post #60
mrob wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flat tax (eg. land tax + sales taxes, which are harder to manipulate than income tax) can be used to fund a universal basic income, which automatically gives you a smooth progressive tax system with no weird breakpoints setting up inefficient incentives.

I was under the impression that by flat tax you meant flat income tax. Property taxes are, at least in California, a very local form of taxes that finance local school districts. Using property taxes for something else (ie, to provide UBI for anyone not living in the direct school district) would be a large change in how those funds are distributed.

The exact mechanism of taxation is an implementation detail. All that's need to qualify as "flat" is that the tax paid must be in fixed proportion to the property or activity being taxed. The only reason I suggested other taxes is because precisely defining "income" in such a way that taxpayers can't manipulate it to their advantage is difficult.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#74

Post by jazzyk »

icebraining wrote: post #71
jazzyk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is just not that complicated: 1. For individuals, simple tax code which does not distinguish where your income came from, but does keep income brackets (not flat tax). 2. For businesses, distinguish between: - "US-based" company which would pay 10% corporate tax. A US-based company would need to have at least 66% of employees based in the US and/or at least 50% of the products/services produced in the US…

A corporate tax on what? Income, profit, dividends, expatriation?

Could be tax on profit or % of revenue, if there is no profit.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#75

Post by aczerepinski »

The business leaders who really matter are motivated by their passion and curiosity, shaping their legacy, changing the world, etc. I don't think a personal tax rate of 90% would stop the next Steve Jobs from doing important work.

If we're talking about a class of people who don't enjoy their work and won't keep at it without outsized financial incentives, I really don't think we're describing visionaries that we depend on for realizing our potential as a species. I'm 100% ok if hedge fund managers who underperform the market anyway decide to close up shop and sip pina coladas all day.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#76

Post by jghn »

technofiend wrote: post #49
neonhomer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich are using the same score and since they are "losing" they hate the rich. If we all stop using money as the score we'd all be better off.

How do you define having "enough" money? There was a Wall Street Journal survey many years ago and the majority who responded said something like "If I made twice as much money as I do now I'd be happy." Never mind the fact that the survey covered enough income levels that people who made $30k were wishing for $60k and those who made $60k were wishing for $120k. I think unfortunately for most people their expenditure…

Over the last 5 years my salary has doubled, so I suppose I can look at this thought experiment pretty objectively. The short answer is that you're right but so are they. I am happier, but not as happy as I thought I'd be because my expenses have also increased. Also, beyond increased expenses the horizon of what is possible has also improved and those things are more expensive.

So yes, there's all of that. But as i started with I am happier due to having more money. There are all sorts of things I'm able to just do without thinking about it now, things where I'd previously need to consider "if I do X I wont be able to do Y next week". I don't have to trade a retirement savings for a comfortable lifestyle. I'm able to afford more and better leisure activities. And then, to tie it back to your side, I go visit my friends who make twice as much as I do and I realize how much better off I could be.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#77

Post by wu-ikkyu »

sordidasset wrote: post #16
neonhomer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich are using the same score and since they are "losing" they hate the rich. If we all stop using money as the score we'd all be better off.

What quantifiable system of keeping score is as universally applicaple as money? Money is an awful way to keep score on a global scale, but it seems to be the best we have.

What does the score of money measure?

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#78

Post by jazzyk »

crispyambulance wrote: post #64
jazzyk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is just not that complicated: 1. For individuals, simple tax code which does not distinguish where your income came from, but does keep income brackets (not flat tax). 2. For businesses, distinguish between: - "US-based" company which would pay 10% corporate tax. A US-based company would need to have at least 66% of employees based in the US and/or at least 50% of the products/services produced in the US…

A simple tax code would be beautiful thing. Unfortunately, its never going to happen. It will be phone-book-sized for the foreseeable future. Even loopholes which, by common sense, should be closed are fought against with ferocity. For example, the corporate jet loophole-- effectively a "gift" for millionaires and their corporations... https://qz.com/196369/why-buying-a-corporate-jet-pays-for-it...

Agree - we would need to introduce term limits in D.C. and a bunch of other changes. Not going to happen until the SHTF.

Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

#79

Post by pnutjam »

chollida1 wrote: post #2

I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…

Good job torpedoing this discussion, I hope you get a bonus from your "think tank". None of your points should preclude us from doing something, you'd have us just throw up our hands and say "aw shucks, those rich fella's are just too smart."
Post reply on HN