7 ms·

I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes

48 points by loisaidasam 7y ago

supergauntlet 7y ago
Sounds just like Warren Buffett: http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-more/ http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-mor... Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!): https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts the handwringing around AOC's 70% top tax bracket in perspective.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% ...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollywood-stars-didn-t-pay-90-percent-tax-they-created-loopholes https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw... (edit) To the people who don't get the point: Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do. People may have this fantasy about rich people that they're just hoarding money like a dragon hoards gold. In reality, rich people invest their money, which the government wants them to do, so they don't tax investments (capital gains) that highly.
  - supergauntlet 7y ago
    Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect taxes?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - oceliker 7y ago
      The argument is that the 85% tax bracket was never really 85%, so it doesn't set a valid precedent.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Which is surely an argument to be careful to avoid evasion loopholes?
jsnk 7y ago
Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?
- whb07 7y ago
  Nope. It might be just a form of virtue signaling knowing full well they won't get their bluff called.
  - komali2 7y ago
    Hm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling >In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action. This man appears to be taking action, and advocating action. > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream. Lately, I find myself in discussions with people using the term to mock anybody that demonstrates care for liberal cause. I'm happy to acknowledge the transformation of the term "virtue signalling" to mean "supporting liberal causes," if that's what you want the term to mean in your post. Of course, I'd abandon any presumptive negative associations with the action of "virtue signalling," then.
    - whb07 7y ago
      Which man we talking about here? Anyhow, my point is that nothing prevents Citizen X to send more money to the IRS. They talk about it and will "do it only if others do it" but like I said they are only using words rather than actions.
      - komali2 7y ago
fkymdfky 7y ago
The nakedly partisan bullshit that gets upvoted on HN is disgusting. Silence on the veritas Google expose.
youareawesome 7y ago
If you took the total combined wealth of the wealthiest 100 Americans, you wouldn't be able to fund the federal government for more than half a year or so. Taxing the rich sounds nice as virtuous political rhetoric but it won't effectively address poverty, just further erodes the liberty of private citizens. If you want to fund more social programs then tax corporations, like the oil companies and the large investment firms, like ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs. Don't punish success.
- CanSpice 7y ago
  You do realize that the top 1% is more than just the wealthiest 100 Americans, right? And you do realize that nobody's saying "reduce everybody else's taxes to zero", right?
  - youareawesome 7y ago
    Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying. I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.
    - ninkendo 7y ago
      > I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans. But in a response to an article about the top 1%, you used the top 100 wealthiest Americans as a counterpoint. If you're not trying to make a connection, why bother with the analogy?
      - youareawesome 7y ago
        I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.
        7y ago
slang800 7y ago
This is a great idea, but Eli doesn't need to wait for the law to be changed. He can donate as much as he wants directly to the US government right now. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
- tylerhou 7y ago
  Except raising tax rates on everyone above a certain income is much more effective than one person voluntarily donating.
  - slang800 7y ago
    Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.
    - komali2 7y ago
      What is your take on the reasoning he put in the article on why he doesn't "just" do that? > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream.
      - slang800 7y ago
        That's not a reason why he can't do it, he's just saying that other people will need to do it too. I completely agree with him on that, he certainly can't do it alone. However, I think that he should set an example without waiting for others to join him.
zajd 7y ago
Oh look another rich dude who spends his money trying to get Charter Schools instead of actually pursuing raising taxes on the ultrawealthy. Where's $50m to a foundation set on creating a wealth tax Mr Broad?
iambvk 7y ago
IMO, their taxable "income" is typically very less.
yitchelle 7y ago
Can't they just pay more tax dollars that is higher than they are obliged to pay? I guess this is America.
gridlockd 7y ago
That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state. The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/democrats-use-nordic-nations-as-models-of-socialism-they-actually-involve-a-lot-of-capitalism/2019/06/24/b6d9bbdc-945c-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/demo... I was really glad to find the Washington Post publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promises that certain Democrats are espousing currently. (The wording of this comment was edited to cause less offense)
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Downvoting the truth doesn't change it, sorry!
  - komali2 7y ago
    I think you're getting downvoted for using a term like "virtue signal" to describe someone who devotes themselves full-time to philanthropy, and then diverging into a political flame-bait comment about "democrat scam."
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      Oh right, I forgot. One must not use opinionated speech and everything must be properly sourced in order to write a "proper" HN comment. My bad! I have adjusted the wording.
- komali2 7y ago
  Can you clarify why you believe this is a "virtue signal?" You're the second person in this thread to do so. My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action." And yet: > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. In the article he's saying this isn't enough. So, why use the term "virtue signal?" Are you arguing that he's doing nothing about the issue but writing a blog post?
Causality1 7y ago
It's always been fascinating to me that "things that poor people spend most of their money on" is subject to a sales tax but "things rich people spend most of their money on" isn't. Services from beauty shops, car repair, home maintenance and repair? Taxed. Services from lawyers and accountants? Not taxed. Buying a TV, food, gasoline? Taxed. Buying a piece of land or stocks? Not taxed.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  Land is taxed yearly. Stocks are taxed in cases where you profit from their sale. Dividends are also taxed in most cases as ordinary income. I can see merit in taxing both transactions for land in stocks, but it's inaccurate to say that they aren't taxed. You can also argue that buying land is way more necessary than a TV. Everyone needs to live on a piece of land, not everyone needs (or wants) a TV.
  - Causality1 7y ago
    Other "poor people" expenses are subject to both sales tax and ownership tax, like vehicles.
xvedejas 7y ago
But why raise income or wealth taxes when you can raise land value taxes or carbon/pollution taxes instead? My income does not harm anyone else, nor does being wealthy. But my hoarding of land does exclude land from others. My release of carbon / pollution into the atmosphere even more obviously harms other people. I think we're doing a huge disservice taxing the wrong things, when there are things that are useful to tax (apart from the government revenue). This is why I think we should lower (or remove) income taxes -- because we could raise the same amount in more useful ways. I think there are also economic reasons to believe income taxes make the labor market less efficient. If your goal is to tackle inequality, why insist on doing it in a sub-optimal way? It absolutely matters not just how much you tax and who you tax, but also what you're taxing (and therefore discouraging). Let's start with some revenue-neutral changes to the tax structure. We might see both a stronger economy and less pollution because of it, for free.
- youareawesome 7y ago
  This is not an income tax, this is a wealth tax. Very different. You're taxed on money you are simply holding.
  - xvedejas 7y ago
    My comment still applies. Most wealth is invested. Investing is a good thing; it allows long-term thinking. Taxing investment, like taxing income, has a negative effect.
  - JackFr 7y ago
    > You're taxed on money you are simply holding. Exactly, and that is why it's such an abysmal idea. Wealth is capital and how capital is allocated to a large extent how fast an economy will grow. To take private capital, which presumably was invested where it could find the greatest risk adjusted return, and move it to another enterprise (presumably a darling of some vested interest) or worse to consumption leaves the overall economy worse off. Taxing income, which is a flow rather than a stock, has distorts incentives on the economy as well but much more gently.
- 7y ago
methodiosmel 7y ago
This assumes giving the government more money will solve the problems most individuals face. The problem is, the wealthy will survive higher taxes, but sooner or later we run out of their money and they inevitably have to tax the middle class and ultimately everyone. I don't care if the rich get taxed more, but I know I'll be next sooner or later, but society's will ensure.
methodiosmel 7y ago
This assumes giving the government more money will solve the problems most individuals face. The problem is, the wealthy will survive higher taxes, but sooner or later we run out of their money and they inevitably have to tax the middle class and ultimately everyone. I don't care if the rich get taxed more, but I know I'll be next sooner or later, but society's problems will endure.

48 points by loisaidasam 7y ago

Sounds just like Warren Buffett: http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-more/ http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-rich-mor... Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!): https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts the handwringing around AOC's 70% top tax bracket in perspective.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% ...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollywood-stars-didn-t-pay-90-percent-tax-they-created-loopholes https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw... (edit) To the people who don't get the point: Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do. People may have this fantasy about rich people that they're just hoarding money like a dragon hoards gold. In reality, rich people invest their money, which the government wants them to do, so they don't tax investments (capital gains) that highly.
- supergauntlet 7y ago
  Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect taxes?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - oceliker 7y ago
    The argument is that the 85% tax bracket was never really 85%, so it doesn't set a valid precedent.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Which is surely an argument to be careful to avoid evasion loopholes?

jsnk 7y ago

Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?

whb07 7y ago
Nope. It might be just a form of virtue signaling knowing full well they won't get their bluff called.
- komali2 7y ago
  Hm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling >In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action. This man appears to be taking action, and advocating action. > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream. Lately, I find myself in discussions with people using the term to mock anybody that demonstrates care for liberal cause. I'm happy to acknowledge the transformation of the term "virtue signalling" to mean "supporting liberal causes," if that's what you want the term to mean in your post. Of course, I'd abandon any presumptive negative associations with the action of "virtue signalling," then.
  - whb07 7y ago
    Which man we talking about here? Anyhow, my point is that nothing prevents Citizen X to send more money to the IRS. They talk about it and will "do it only if others do it" but like I said they are only using words rather than actions.
    - komali2 7y ago

fkymdfky 7y ago

The nakedly partisan bullshit that gets upvoted on HN is disgusting. Silence on the veritas Google expose.

youareawesome 7y ago

If you took the total combined wealth of the wealthiest 100 Americans, you wouldn't be able to fund the federal government for more than half a year or so. Taxing the rich sounds nice as virtuous political rhetoric but it won't effectively address poverty, just further erodes the liberty of private citizens. If you want to fund more social programs then tax corporations, like the oil companies and the large investment firms, like ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs. Don't punish success.

CanSpice 7y ago
You do realize that the top 1% is more than just the wealthiest 100 Americans, right? And you do realize that nobody's saying "reduce everybody else's taxes to zero", right?
- youareawesome 7y ago
  Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying. I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.
  - ninkendo 7y ago
    > I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans. But in a response to an article about the top 1%, you used the top 100 wealthiest Americans as a counterpoint. If you're not trying to make a connection, why bother with the analogy?
    - youareawesome 7y ago
      I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.
      - 7y ago

slang800 7y ago

This is a great idea, but Eli doesn't need to wait for the law to be changed. He can donate as much as he wants directly to the US government right now. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

tylerhou 7y ago
Except raising tax rates on everyone above a certain income is much more effective than one person voluntarily donating.
- slang800 7y ago
  Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.
  - komali2 7y ago
    What is your take on the reasoning he put in the article on why he doesn't "just" do that? > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream.
    - slang800 7y ago
      That's not a reason why he can't do it, he's just saying that other people will need to do it too. I completely agree with him on that, he certainly can't do it alone. However, I think that he should set an example without waiting for others to join him.

zajd 7y ago

Oh look another rich dude who spends his money trying to get Charter Schools instead of actually pursuing raising taxes on the ultrawealthy. Where's $50m to a foundation set on creating a wealth tax Mr Broad?

iambvk 7y ago

IMO, their taxable "income" is typically very less.

yitchelle 7y ago

Can't they just pay more tax dollars that is higher than they are obliged to pay? I guess this is America.

gridlockd 7y ago

That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state. The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/democrats-use-nordic-nations-as-models-of-socialism-they-actually-involve-a-lot-of-capitalism/2019/06/24/b6d9bbdc-945c-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/demo... I was really glad to find the Washington Post publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promises that certain Democrats are espousing currently. (The wording of this comment was edited to cause less offense)

gridlockd 7y ago
Downvoting the truth doesn't change it, sorry!
- komali2 7y ago
  I think you're getting downvoted for using a term like "virtue signal" to describe someone who devotes themselves full-time to philanthropy, and then diverging into a political flame-bait comment about "democrat scam."
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Oh right, I forgot. One must not use opinionated speech and everything must be properly sourced in order to write a "proper" HN comment. My bad! I have adjusted the wording.
komali2 7y ago
Can you clarify why you believe this is a "virtue signal?" You're the second person in this thread to do so. My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action." And yet: > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. In the article he's saying this isn't enough. So, why use the term "virtue signal?" Are you arguing that he's doing nothing about the issue but writing a blog post?

Causality1 7y ago

It's always been fascinating to me that "things that poor people spend most of their money on" is subject to a sales tax but "things rich people spend most of their money on" isn't. Services from beauty shops, car repair, home maintenance and repair? Taxed. Services from lawyers and accountants? Not taxed. Buying a TV, food, gasoline? Taxed. Buying a piece of land or stocks? Not taxed.

antisthenes 7y ago
Land is taxed yearly. Stocks are taxed in cases where you profit from their sale. Dividends are also taxed in most cases as ordinary income. I can see merit in taxing both transactions for land in stocks, but it's inaccurate to say that they aren't taxed. You can also argue that buying land is way more necessary than a TV. Everyone needs to live on a piece of land, not everyone needs (or wants) a TV.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Other "poor people" expenses are subject to both sales tax and ownership tax, like vehicles.

xvedejas 7y ago

But why raise income or wealth taxes when you can raise land value taxes or carbon/pollution taxes instead? My income does not harm anyone else, nor does being wealthy. But my hoarding of land does exclude land from others. My release of carbon / pollution into the atmosphere even more obviously harms other people. I think we're doing a huge disservice taxing the wrong things, when there are things that are useful to tax (apart from the government revenue). This is why I think we should lower (or remove) income taxes -- because we could raise the same amount in more useful ways. I think there are also economic reasons to believe income taxes make the labor market less efficient. If your goal is to tackle inequality, why insist on doing it in a sub-optimal way? It absolutely matters not just how much you tax and who you tax, but also what you're taxing (and therefore discouraging). Let's start with some revenue-neutral changes to the tax structure. We might see both a stronger economy and less pollution because of it, for free.

youareawesome 7y ago
This is not an income tax, this is a wealth tax. Very different. You're taxed on money you are simply holding.
- xvedejas 7y ago
  My comment still applies. Most wealth is invested. Investing is a good thing; it allows long-term thinking. Taxing investment, like taxing income, has a negative effect.
- JackFr 7y ago
  > You're taxed on money you are simply holding. Exactly, and that is why it's such an abysmal idea. Wealth is capital and how capital is allocated to a large extent how fast an economy will grow. To take private capital, which presumably was invested where it could find the greatest risk adjusted return, and move it to another enterprise (presumably a darling of some vested interest) or worse to consumption leaves the overall economy worse off. Taxing income, which is a flow rather than a stock, has distorts incentives on the economy as well but much more gently.
7y ago

methodiosmel 7y ago

This assumes giving the government more money will solve the problems most individuals face. The problem is, the wealthy will survive higher taxes, but sooner or later we run out of their money and they inevitably have to tax the middle class and ultimately everyone. I don't care if the rich get taxed more, but I know I'll be next sooner or later, but society's will ensure.

methodiosmel 7y ago