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

Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

fair.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 488 posts

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#91

Post by wrkronmiller »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #49

What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with reduced productivity. A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to area…

> What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts.

You say this, yet you don't provide a single citation for any of your arguments.

> There is a very strong case that one reason for sluggish economic growth is the concentration of assets and wealth in so few hands, and the continuing stagnation/decline in wealth/living standards/etc of bottom 40% of the US when measured in things like "healthcare", "education" etc. A redistributive wealth tax that was well structured could be a huge boon to GDP growth.

This seems plausible, but not self-evident. Give us evidence.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#92

Post by pochamago »

krapp wrote: post #19
ceilingcorner wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan?

Moot was at least a millionaire, and the current owner Hiroyuki Nishimura's wikipedia page[0] doesn't make him seem likely to be poor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroyuki_Nishimura

Moot might have been a millionaire after selling it, but it never sounded like 4chan was making him money. He was still living with his parents, and paying for the lawsuits was very expensive.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#93

Post by AnimalMuppet »

RivieraKid wrote: post #11
commandlinefan wrote: post #2

I'm neither wealthy nor the media and I believe that wealth taxes are a bad idea, too.

Why? (I mostly agree but it's not a strong opinion)

I'm not the one you're asking. But here's my take:

To some degree, wealth taxes break down the idea of private property ownership. "Your right of ownership is secured by law, but if you own too much, we'll take some of it away." I know that's not the way it's sold. But that is one aspect of the reality of it. I am in favor of the continued existence of private property rights, and for that reason I don't like a wealth tax.

Also, such things tend to grow with time. You're going to tax those with more than a billion dollars? Seems OK, no relevance to me, and those people can afford it. You need more money this year, and you're going to tax those with more than 10 million? Well, I don't have that, either, but it's getting closer. Need still more money, and so you're moving it to a million? I might, by then, especially if inflation kicks back up.

On the other hand, you could make a reasonable case that the existence of a wealth disparity of the magnitude that exists today is a threat to our society, especially if it can be inherited.

So I lean against a wealth tax, but I can also see reasons for it...

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#94

Post by gonehome »

RivieraKid wrote: post #11
commandlinefan wrote: post #2

I'm neither wealthy nor the media and I believe that wealth taxes are a bad idea, too.

Why? (I mostly agree but it's not a strong opinion)

For me it comes down to a few things.

- I think wealth can be created and isn't always a zero sum transfer

- I think we want to incentivize wealth creation

- I think economic growth constrained by protection for human rights and environmental destruction is the best way to improve the quality of life for the most people the fastest.

- I think wealth taxes disincentivize a lot of these things with knock on effects (forcing people to liquidate their company equity, etc.). It's also repeatedly taxing the same money every year eventually down to whatever the cap is.

I'd rather set taxes/caps at generational wealth transfer if you're going to try and incentivize something - might as well go after dynastic wealth and the children that benefit from it without creating anything. I think focusing on housing and land use/zoning would also directly benefit more people by fixing existing perverse incentives.

PG writes about some of this in essays, Tyler Cowen's book Stubborn Attachments was also interesting on the growth aspect (though wealth taxes aren't specifically mentioned).

Why do we think wealth will be better allocated by a government? This money is largely already taxed either via capital gains or income. I'd suspect a lot of our problems are problems of incentives and competing priorities, not of available cash flow for government programs.

That's my take anyway, I suspect a 'hate the rich' motivated reasoning position pushing the idea of a wealth tax more than any serious thinking about incentives and what it might do. It seems political.

(I am nowhere near the level where the proposed tax would start and probably never will be.)

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#95

Post by tonystubblebine »

spullara wrote: post #42
tonystubblebine wrote: post #6

As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…

This is a wealth tax that would apply to the valuation of the business, not the profits that it makes.

I was posting a tangent. It resonated, but it's probably a mistake that this is the top comment since I'm not talking about the article specifically, just how wealth is taxed and a way in which the public debate is misinformed.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#99

Post by hamolton »

el_nahual wrote: post #21

Classic circular fallacy. "Wealth taxes are good. Wealthy people don't like wealth taxes, and that's how you know they are good." Or is it an ad hominem even if the "hominem" is a class (wealthy people) instead of a person?

It's definitely a useless argument for a fairly lazy article. I don't disagree that the articles they link have weak arguments, but why not actually cite economic policy experts and economists that agree with wealth inequality? The lack of attention to such viewpoints, if their claim holds true, would better indicate media bias than them publishing weak op-eds.

Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

#100

Post by yardie »

s_dev wrote: post #46
tonystubblebine wrote: post #6

As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…

>As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high Where do you live that taxes are as volatile as petrol prices? Taxes change in Ireland but in terms of decades.

In the US income tax rarely changes. But tax deductions are fair game and change year to year and administration to administration. Last year, Trump bragged about lowering taxes. He lowered it by increasing the standard deduction for some. But it increased for others, such as myself, who take advantage of other deductions that were cut back or removed.
Post reply on HN