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

71–80 of 580 posts

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

#71

Post by mantas »

naasking wrote: post #43
mlac wrote: post #24

I would really just like a flat tax. No loopholes or deductions. Very simple. It should not take a masters degree to understand the tax code. I recognize this is one of the main ways Policy is implemented (incentives can drive certain behavior), but we’ve got hundreds of years of complexity going on and I wouldn’t mind simplifying this. I don’t know where to start though.

Flat tax is too regressive. What seems justified is a basic S-curve indexed by income, and where the left hand side dips below zero so those below a certain line effectively get a negative income tax to maintain a certain standard of living.

Flat tax + minimum non-taxable incomes is where it's at. Just set high enough threshold.

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #6
deeblering4 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the .001 consistently encroach on our political policies for private benefit. I see these tax loopholes as bugs/vulnerabilities in the tax code. And just like in software, bad actors have an incentive to keep the bugs in place. Shedding light on them is a first step towards greater awareness and eventual fixes.

> Taxes aren't and shouldn't be secret. Cool. Would you mind sending me your tax returns (assuming you're in the US), or similar income history? You can oppose tax loopholes without encroaching on the privacy of others. To use your example, imagine dumping hacked Facebook user data because you don't like bugs in Facebook software

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by standardUser »

geoduck14 wrote: post #56
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #53

Side-note: although not part of the 0.001%, it's mind blowing that it's June 2021, and we still haven't seen Trump's promised tax return.

Did Trump make that promise? Are you REALLY surprised he didn't fill that promise?

Yes he did make that promise and no, of course no one should be surprised Trump lied directly and repeatedly to voters.

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

#74

Post by failwhaleshark »

gota wrote: post #54
failwhaleshark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes the lives of gold-diggers easier too. If it were opt-in that would be fine, otherwise it's an invasion of privacy of most people who aren't rich. It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. Fight wealth…

I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information. To your points: > gold-diggers I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their mone…

> this is a non-issue.

Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains?

> I think its fine in context.

That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It's the only number that matters and yet you're stilling trying hard to trivialize it.

> And - if your justice can be bought,

Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff.

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

#75

Post by pmoriarty »

naasking wrote: post #43
mlac wrote: post #24

I would really just like a flat tax. No loopholes or deductions. Very simple. It should not take a masters degree to understand the tax code. I recognize this is one of the main ways Policy is implemented (incentives can drive certain behavior), but we’ve got hundreds of years of complexity going on and I wouldn’t mind simplifying this. I don’t know where to start though.

Flat tax is too regressive. What seems justified is a basic S-curve indexed by income, and where the left hand side dips below zero so those below a certain line effectively get a negative income tax to maintain a certain standard of living.

Many of the ultra-wealthy have little or no income.

What needs to be taxed is wealth, not income.

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

#77

Post by deeviant »

bko wrote: post #2

> Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden.... We believe that disclosing the identities of billionaires who paid little to no taxes in years their fortunes grew by billions of dollars will help readers understand t…

> So it's okay to encroach on the privacy of private individuals as long as it serves a political purpose?

Interesting how your turn "public interest" into "political purpose".

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

#78

Post by Retric »

btilly wrote: post #69
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You become a kidnapping target by being rich, whether that's a matter of public record or just someone cruising the wealthier neighbourhoods is arbitrary. I mean over here you can't look up who makes how much, but the rough value of houses and neighbourhoods, which is used to determine property taxes, is public record. I'm sure there's some rich people / families living in otherwise underwhelming houses, but they're…

Per The Millionaire Next Door (see https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Amer... for the link), most wealthy are those who have a reasonable income but good financial discipline. Which means that a shocking number of millionaires live in poor neighborhoods and have modest lifestyles. Those aren't the super-wealthy, of course. But most wealthy people can't be identified by where they live.

The millionaire next door uses an artificially low threshold for wealth. It’s not a book about the wealthy, it’s largely a book about retirement. 1M is only generating ~40k per year, if that’s your savings you can’t afford to live in an affluent area without a job.

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

#79

Post by secondcoming »

exotree wrote: post #4
bko wrote: post #2

> Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden.... We believe that disclosing the identities of billionaires who paid little to no taxes in years their fortunes grew by billions of dollars will help readers understand t…

They are not private individuals. They are individuals that are of public interest (much like celebrities) and hold significant sway over communities (much like public officials). This is pretty standard legal precedent.

Hi, exotree, I have declared you to be of interest to the public. What's your annual take-home pay?

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

#80

Post by naasking »

pmoriarty wrote: post #75
naasking wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flat tax is too regressive. What seems justified is a basic S-curve indexed by income, and where the left hand side dips below zero so those below a certain line effectively get a negative income tax to maintain a certain standard of living.

Many of the ultra-wealthy have little or no income. What needs to be taxed is wealth, not income.

I don't entirely disagree, but current political and economic structures aren't designed well enough for a wealth tax.
Post reply on HN