10 ms·

Bill Gates Objects to Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax, and She Offers to Explain

33 points by mitchbob 7y ago

baggy_trough 7y ago
The wealth tax is unconstitutional unless the amount collected is apportioned between states in accordance with their census population. Hope there are a bunch of billionaires in West Virginia to carry the load!
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The wealth tax is unconstitutional unless the amount collected is apportioned between states in accordance with their census population. Or the implementation involves a Constitutional Amendment. But, sure, just fixing income taxes so that they incorporate the function of payroll taxes within the progressive scheme, and do not favor capital income (but do accommodate irregular income in a manner which is fair by allowing advance and deferred recognition of income to smooth spikes from non-repeated events, which will often involve capital income) is both constitutionally more straightforward and simpler method of shifting the overall tax burden more onto the rich.
- masonic 7y ago
  Unless... nothing. There is no power to tax wealth in the Constitution.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    I believe it's considered a direct tax. Is that wrong?
    - zip1234 7y ago
      Since there has never been a wealth tax, the matter is up for legal debate.
  - teddyuk 7y ago
    I’m not American so sorry if I am being naive but can the constitution not be changed?
    - docdeek 7y ago
      It can be but it is incredibly difficult to do so if there is not widespread support for the amendment. A partisan issue like this wouldn't have a real hope in the current political climate.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      It can, but takes a great deal of effort. The bar for a constitutional amendment is much higher than, say, winning an election; this is a good thing, as it prevents the constitution from being re-written every four years. A politician may win a presidential or congressional election, but will not likely convince the other half of the nation to support any such policy. Income tax took a constitutional amendment, so yes, directly seizing money from citizens would take one as well.
- rubyn00bie 7y ago
  exasperated sigh Taxes are legal... Nothing unconstitutional about a tax on wealth. The bit about "uniformity" is already severely out-of-whack; so, arguing like it isn't doesn't make sense. Uniformity could also be implemented by tax bracket, et voila, problem mostly solved, but not like it ever was a problem.
  - maneesh 7y ago
    The NYTimes had an article today about the difference between an income tax and a wealth tax, and how there is a constitutional problem with the wealth tax. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21472442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21472442
throwaway123x2 7y ago
Why would a wealth tax be a bad thing?
- zip1234 7y ago
  Where does the money go?
  - throwaway123x2 7y ago
    Healthcare, education, infrastructure... all of which badly need funding.
    - cdiddy2 7y ago
      infrastructure I agree, but we should just move funds to do that. healthcare and education are both already spending way too much on. healthcare is pretty obvious, but education as well we spend more than most other countries https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education...
      - docbrown 7y ago
        > healthcare and education are both already spending way too much on. Huh? Currently on mobile so I don’t have the CBO file to link but I will when I get to my PC. Anyway, Healthcare spending is not actually “too much” and instead is too low. When we expanded Medicaid and implemented the ACA, estimated costs were below actual cost by hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars due to the unknown number of people accessing healthcare. Healthcare is the one area in which there is not enough money being spent on lower income brackets and Medicaid/Medicare users.
    - john_moscow 7y ago
      So colleges and hospitals will finally have more administrators than students/patients? ([0], but you can google more). I think, the problem is not the lack of funding, but terrible inefficiency and lack of transparency. [0] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-administrative-bloat-in-us-public-schools/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-administrati...
LinuxBender 7y ago
Every time someone talks about ways to squeeze me more, I start looking for places that will squeeze me less. This statement will rub particular folks the wrong way and I stand by my words. The government does not and has not ever deserved one penny of the taxes I have paid. In fact, I plan to get 400% of it back from them.
- luckydata 7y ago
  try Somalia.
  - potta_coffee 7y ago
    Sure, if Somalia just raised taxes, they'd become a 1st world country.
- skummetmaelk 7y ago
  What a productive attitude to have. I sincerely hope that everyone in your life tries to extract 400% more from you than you get from them.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Did you or the companies you worked for or owned benefit from the US government providing things such as roads, education of you or the people you worked with, the government defending property rights, or ensuring that you had clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, non-poisonous food to eat and medicine to take? Or how about all the basic research that the US government funds that virtually every company and person in the US benefits from? All of these have been funded with taxes, and odds are that you've benefited (directly or indirectly) from them. Did you feel you deserved these benefits? Would you feel entitled to them despite paying no taxes?
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  You're really worth more than $50M?! Congratulations.
- eutropia 7y ago
ethanwillis 7y ago
I'm really tired of all these paywalled articles taking up space on the front page.
- jotto 7y ago
  Clear your local storage, sessions, cookies, etc. for that particular domain. Chrome "developer tools" -> "application tab" -> "Clear storage"
- tim333 7y ago
  There are usually ways around the paywall. Try the 'web' link or deleting cookies. What works varies a bit by location.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- brenden2 7y ago
  If you're using Firefox, Temporary Containers is a life saver: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
- FR10 7y ago
  Im tired as well, but in another thread I read that you can go into "reader mode" in Safari, and you can read it just fine.
jaypeg25 7y ago
Bill Gates also said he'd be willing to double the amount of taxes he currently pays, but you won't see that headline anywhere.
- exhilaration 7y ago
  Maybe not the headline but it's right in TFA.
- tombert 7y ago
  It is mentioned directly in the linked article. I guess it's not a "headline", but it's not exactly hidden.
  - jaypeg25 7y ago
    I know it is - that's where I got the fact from - but the fact that the headline is what it is leads to a distorted view from everyone who DOESN'T read the article.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  How generous. That would bring him in line with what his secretary probably pays[1]. [1] https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secret...
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    In percentage terms? You realize Bill Gates literally has a multi-million dollar tax bill every year, right? Even if you cheat taxes egregiously, and even if your effective federal tax rate is only 15% -- when you have $70Bn in wealth, your income (cheated to extremes) is still going to be at least in the hundreds of millions. 15% of that is still 10s of millions of dollars. And as others pointed out, if you're going to pick fights with billionaires, Bill Gates probably isn't the best place to start. You would be hard pressed to convince many people here he's been a net-negative to human civilization.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
One thing that taxing billionaires will do is drive the wealth in "Foundations" that are controlled by them. If you have a billion dollars, all your pleasures and needs are taken care of. The use for the excess money is ego and power. Thus, if it is tax advantageous to put the money into a foundation, then you will do it. Does anyone really draw a distinction between Bill Gates giving money to a cause and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation giving money to a cause? While the Gates Foundation is doing great things, it is probably very ego gratifying to have the top scientists and philanthropists and heads of governments coming to you asking for money. It is also a very powerful position to be in charge of so much money. Thus, if we have a wealth tax, we will see the money go from being the billionaire's personal money, into being part of a foundation named after the billionaire that they control.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Let's close one loophole at at time. Foundations can be tackled next.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    What "loophole" is being closed here? Having wealth?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Excessive wealth (and therefore, power) is a bug. A wealth tax is a hotfix. Foundations can be addressed through the requirement that donations and control of the non profit receiving the gift is arms length, with punitive penalties for a failure to abide by said requirement. Gates and Buffett can still donate to a foundation, but then they aren't able to control it. Most Americans will never be a millionaire or a billionaire. This is statistics, not feelings. There's no point in them supporting policies enabling such disparity in the economic system.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
tim333 7y ago
Wealth taxes have issues. Wikipedia: >In 2004, a study by the Institut de l'enterprise investigated why several European countries were eliminating wealth taxes and made the following observations: 1. Wealth taxes contributed to capital drain, promoting the flight of capital as well as discouraging investors from coming in. 2. Wealth taxes had high management cost and relatively low returns. 3. Wealth taxes distorted resource allocation, particularly involving certain exemptions and unequal valuation of assets. In its summary, the institute found that the "wealth taxes were not as equitable as they appeared"
manigandham 7y ago
The biggest problem with these tax plans is that they're always focused on collecting more money without ever talking about where that money is actually going. The government is absolutely useless at spending it well, and it won't magically get better with even more money. Wealthy powerful billionaires is a valid issue but there should be a better strategy based on incentives for the greater good beyond just "tax them more". A look at how much the Bill Gates foundation has done proves that wealth can be deployed with positive impact, but sadly it's not something that gets much news.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > The government is absolutely useless at spending it well Corporations are absolutely useless at spending it well. The government, on the other hand, has a long list of successful projects that required a tremendous of money—the interstate system, the hoover dam, the moon landing, and so on. Are there initiatives that wasted a ton of money? Of course. But look at any major company, and you'll find the same thing. Apple wasted most of a billion dollars on a sapphire plant that couldn't make what they promised, Google bought Motorola for $12 billion and then sold it 2 years later for $3 billion, every company Verizon or Yahoo! bought turned to garbage. The list goes on and on and on.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That's a strange way to look at it since the corporations have a much better ratio of wins to losses and have to manage profitability. Regardless, the issue is government spending, not collection. I don't see how aggregating even more money into a few politicians is somehow going to solve anything, or what difference a few billion will make when the country spends trillions.
    - istjohn 7y ago
      It's simple. Fund healthcare, education, earned income tax credits, student loan forgiveness, early childhood education, green energy, carbon sequestration. Fund the IRS so the tax code is enforced for the wealthy as vigorously as it is enforced for the poor. It's not hard to find huge societal wins that can be had with increased spending.
lightedman 7y ago
HN, you're supposed to be sharing news stories. When you put up on your front page material that is behind paywalls for various reasons, you degrade the ability for the community to actually discuss the story. If it's behind a paywall, ban it immediately if you are unable to find a second source. Your ability to actually have a meaningful conversation dies rapidly with this nonsense. No, I should NOT have to turn off private mode, or use Temporary containers, or any other stupid workaround in order to be able to read a story and then be able to actually have a discussion here regarding it. I click a link, I expect it to load fully. Period. @dang @stcb
big_chungus 7y ago
Wealth taxes are a bad idea. We already have one (inflation), which is a nasty way to bypass the electorate and hits the poor hardest, but I don't think an explicit one is any better. It seems to come from the Sanders-and-company position of "billionaires should not exist"; many appear to believe that morally, even were everyone else well-off, someone having that much more is simply wrong. _Why_ is a "wealth tax" any better? Why shouldn't I be worried about the precedent of the government taking someone's assets? This seems bad for the same reasons civil forfeiture is bad. Secondarily, I fail to understand the defense of such a policy by the "fair share" argument. Can someone explain? Here's how I see it: I am splitting a pizza among myself and seven friends. I cut it into eight pieces. My "fair share" is one piece, and does not change because someone else is hungrier. However, what the "fair share" of the "one percent" is, according to some people, seems to scale based on how many programs said people want to implement and how much they cost. Before anyone goes after my analogy, please excuse it; I understand that it doesn't fit perfectly, that not everyone has the same number of slices to start with, that the pie is not of constant size, ad nauseum. But even if I am re-distributing pizza from those who have twice as much to those who have half as much, the "just" amount doesn't fluctuate based on the relative hunger of the people in question; why, then, should the "fair share" increase because there are more things which people wish to fund? The taxes seem to be devised to keep up with the policies, rather than the government taking each person's "fair share" and doing as much as possible. Effectively, it seems as though some people believe every dollar past a certain amount is part of a cash reserve with which politicians may fund things. This doesn't really seem "fair".
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  LOL. > We already have a wealth tax (inflation) > which [...] hits the poor hardest. A wealth tax does not hit the poor hardest.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Inflation does. The poor don't have financial advisors, stock trading, etc.; many keep money in cash. Sources: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inflation-may-hit-the-poor-hardest/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inflation-may-hit-the-p... https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/why-inflation-hits-poor-hardest-11684646 https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/why-inflation-hits-poor-hard... http://www.poverty.ac.uk/inflation-low-income-households-necessities-reports/inflation-%E2%80%98hits-poorest-families-hardest%E2%80%99 http://www.poverty.ac.uk/inflation-low-income-households-nec... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003517.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03... https://www.ft.com/content/77a36048-4ddd-11dd-820e-000077b07658 https://www.ft.com/content/77a36048-4ddd-11dd-820e-000077b07... https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Poor-hardest-hit-by-inflation-20140820 https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Poor-hardest-hit-by-inflation-... https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/how-poor-have-been-hit-hardest-inflation https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/how-poor-have-... https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/inflation-hits-the-poor-hardest-washington-post https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/inflation-... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-index-of-inflation-shows-poor-hardest-hit-6cvxs7dnd https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-index-of-inflation-sh... https://business.inquirer.net/151537/poorest-households-hardest-hit-by-inflation-say-economists https://business.inquirer.net/151537/poorest-households-hard...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rubyn00bie 7y ago
We have a system of checks and balances for our social system, but we have quite literally _none_ on our economic system. This inequality of systematic checks and balances on the economy has gradually, but fully, distorted the power structure in America. Most people in this country don't even understand that democracy and capitalism aren't the same thing... Or that we only ever serve out one of those, and it's factually not democracy. Why is that? Why do we say democracy and mean capitalism? Now without substantial adjustment to its ability to usurp and control power; it will remain perpetually imbalanced with economic power vastly outweighing the sum of our individual social power. People in this thread want to talk about how this potential tax isn't fair within the context of a corrupt system. Well, I can't argue against that, it likely isn't fair, but that system itself is exceptionally corrupt. So, to argue it within that context is to already have lost. This tax is fair because we have no checks and balances on our economy and this would be _the first_. This tax is fair because there are uncountable externalities that these individuals do not pay for and cannot pay for because it would be unreasonable burden for them to calculate it. If you want to see the swap drain, stop letting the rich fill it. Stop consolidating power into one vertical... Stop pointing at the government and saying "look at how shitty and corrupt it is," because that corruption is fueled by money. Distribute the money, distribute the power, and a lot of this bullshit will fix itself. ... I'm done, this brought my headache back.
apta 7y ago
What seems to pass many (smart) people, is that fundamentally an interest-based economy like we have today is going to lead to these large gaps in inequality due to the predatory nature of interest. Instead of trying to patch the situation with different taxes, people should work on moving away from an interest-based economy into a system that is based on risk/reward sharing.

33 points by mitchbob 7y ago

The wealth tax is unconstitutional unless the amount collected is apportioned between states in accordance with their census population. Hope there are a bunch of billionaires in West Virginia to carry the load!

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The wealth tax is unconstitutional unless the amount collected is apportioned between states in accordance with their census population. Or the implementation involves a Constitutional Amendment. But, sure, just fixing income taxes so that they incorporate the function of payroll taxes within the progressive scheme, and do not favor capital income (but do accommodate irregular income in a manner which is fair by allowing advance and deferred recognition of income to smooth spikes from non-repeated events, which will often involve capital income) is both constitutionally more straightforward and simpler method of shifting the overall tax burden more onto the rich.
masonic 7y ago
Unless... nothing. There is no power to tax wealth in the Constitution.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  I believe it's considered a direct tax. Is that wrong?
  - zip1234 7y ago
    Since there has never been a wealth tax, the matter is up for legal debate.
- teddyuk 7y ago
  I’m not American so sorry if I am being naive but can the constitution not be changed?
  - docdeek 7y ago
    It can be but it is incredibly difficult to do so if there is not widespread support for the amendment. A partisan issue like this wouldn't have a real hope in the current political climate.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    It can, but takes a great deal of effort. The bar for a constitutional amendment is much higher than, say, winning an election; this is a good thing, as it prevents the constitution from being re-written every four years. A politician may win a presidential or congressional election, but will not likely convince the other half of the nation to support any such policy. Income tax took a constitutional amendment, so yes, directly seizing money from citizens would take one as well.
rubyn00bie 7y ago
exasperated sigh Taxes are legal... Nothing unconstitutional about a tax on wealth. The bit about "uniformity" is already severely out-of-whack; so, arguing like it isn't doesn't make sense. Uniformity could also be implemented by tax bracket, et voila, problem mostly solved, but not like it ever was a problem.
- maneesh 7y ago
  The NYTimes had an article today about the difference between an income tax and a wealth tax, and how there is a constitutional problem with the wealth tax. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21472442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21472442

throwaway123x2 7y ago

Why would a wealth tax be a bad thing?

zip1234 7y ago
Where does the money go?
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  Healthcare, education, infrastructure... all of which badly need funding.
  - cdiddy2 7y ago
    infrastructure I agree, but we should just move funds to do that. healthcare and education are both already spending way too much on. healthcare is pretty obvious, but education as well we spend more than most other countries https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education...
    - docbrown 7y ago
      > healthcare and education are both already spending way too much on. Huh? Currently on mobile so I don’t have the CBO file to link but I will when I get to my PC. Anyway, Healthcare spending is not actually “too much” and instead is too low. When we expanded Medicaid and implemented the ACA, estimated costs were below actual cost by hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars due to the unknown number of people accessing healthcare. Healthcare is the one area in which there is not enough money being spent on lower income brackets and Medicaid/Medicare users.
  - john_moscow 7y ago
    So colleges and hospitals will finally have more administrators than students/patients? ([0], but you can google more). I think, the problem is not the lack of funding, but terrible inefficiency and lack of transparency. [0] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-administrative-bloat-in-us-public-schools/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-administrati...

LinuxBender 7y ago

Every time someone talks about ways to squeeze me more, I start looking for places that will squeeze me less. This statement will rub particular folks the wrong way and I stand by my words. The government does not and has not ever deserved one penny of the taxes I have paid. In fact, I plan to get 400% of it back from them.

luckydata 7y ago
try Somalia.
- potta_coffee 7y ago
  Sure, if Somalia just raised taxes, they'd become a 1st world country.
skummetmaelk 7y ago
What a productive attitude to have. I sincerely hope that everyone in your life tries to extract 400% more from you than you get from them.
pmoriarty 7y ago
Did you or the companies you worked for or owned benefit from the US government providing things such as roads, education of you or the people you worked with, the government defending property rights, or ensuring that you had clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, non-poisonous food to eat and medicine to take? Or how about all the basic research that the US government funds that virtually every company and person in the US benefits from? All of these have been funded with taxes, and odds are that you've benefited (directly or indirectly) from them. Did you feel you deserved these benefits? Would you feel entitled to them despite paying no taxes?
onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
You're really worth more than $50M?! Congratulations.
eutropia 7y ago

ethanwillis 7y ago

I'm really tired of all these paywalled articles taking up space on the front page.

jotto 7y ago
Clear your local storage, sessions, cookies, etc. for that particular domain. Chrome "developer tools" -> "application tab" -> "Clear storage"
tim333 7y ago
There are usually ways around the paywall. Try the 'web' link or deleting cookies. What works varies a bit by location.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
brenden2 7y ago
If you're using Firefox, Temporary Containers is a life saver: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
FR10 7y ago
Im tired as well, but in another thread I read that you can go into "reader mode" in Safari, and you can read it just fine.

jaypeg25 7y ago

Bill Gates also said he'd be willing to double the amount of taxes he currently pays, but you won't see that headline anywhere.

exhilaration 7y ago
Maybe not the headline but it's right in TFA.
tombert 7y ago
It is mentioned directly in the linked article. I guess it's not a "headline", but it's not exactly hidden.
- jaypeg25 7y ago
  I know it is - that's where I got the fact from - but the fact that the headline is what it is leads to a distorted view from everyone who DOESN'T read the article.
AlexandrB 7y ago
How generous. That would bring him in line with what his secretary probably pays[1]. [1] https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secret...
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  In percentage terms? You realize Bill Gates literally has a multi-million dollar tax bill every year, right? Even if you cheat taxes egregiously, and even if your effective federal tax rate is only 15% -- when you have $70Bn in wealth, your income (cheated to extremes) is still going to be at least in the hundreds of millions. 15% of that is still 10s of millions of dollars. And as others pointed out, if you're going to pick fights with billionaires, Bill Gates probably isn't the best place to start. You would be hard pressed to convince many people here he's been a net-negative to human civilization.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

One thing that taxing billionaires will do is drive the wealth in "Foundations" that are controlled by them. If you have a billion dollars, all your pleasures and needs are taken care of. The use for the excess money is ego and power. Thus, if it is tax advantageous to put the money into a foundation, then you will do it. Does anyone really draw a distinction between Bill Gates giving money to a cause and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation giving money to a cause? While the Gates Foundation is doing great things, it is probably very ego gratifying to have the top scientists and philanthropists and heads of governments coming to you asking for money. It is also a very powerful position to be in charge of so much money. Thus, if we have a wealth tax, we will see the money go from being the billionaire's personal money, into being part of a foundation named after the billionaire that they control.

pmoriarty 7y ago
Let's close one loophole at at time. Foundations can be tackled next.
- manigandham 7y ago
  What "loophole" is being closed here? Having wealth?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Excessive wealth (and therefore, power) is a bug. A wealth tax is a hotfix. Foundations can be addressed through the requirement that donations and control of the non profit receiving the gift is arms length, with punitive penalties for a failure to abide by said requirement. Gates and Buffett can still donate to a foundation, but then they aren't able to control it. Most Americans will never be a millionaire or a billionaire. This is statistics, not feelings. There's no point in them supporting policies enabling such disparity in the economic system.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

tim333 7y ago

Wealth taxes have issues. Wikipedia: >In 2004, a study by the Institut de l'enterprise investigated why several European countries were eliminating wealth taxes and made the following observations: 1. Wealth taxes contributed to capital drain, promoting the flight of capital as well as discouraging investors from coming in. 2. Wealth taxes had high management cost and relatively low returns. 3. Wealth taxes distorted resource allocation, particularly involving certain exemptions and unequal valuation of assets. In its summary, the institute found that the "wealth taxes were not as equitable as they appeared"

manigandham 7y ago

The biggest problem with these tax plans is that they're always focused on collecting more money without ever talking about where that money is actually going. The government is absolutely useless at spending it well, and it won't magically get better with even more money. Wealthy powerful billionaires is a valid issue but there should be a better strategy based on incentives for the greater good beyond just "tax them more". A look at how much the Bill Gates foundation has done proves that wealth can be deployed with positive impact, but sadly it's not something that gets much news.

mcphage 7y ago
> The government is absolutely useless at spending it well Corporations are absolutely useless at spending it well. The government, on the other hand, has a long list of successful projects that required a tremendous of money—the interstate system, the hoover dam, the moon landing, and so on. Are there initiatives that wasted a ton of money? Of course. But look at any major company, and you'll find the same thing. Apple wasted most of a billion dollars on a sapphire plant that couldn't make what they promised, Google bought Motorola for $12 billion and then sold it 2 years later for $3 billion, every company Verizon or Yahoo! bought turned to garbage. The list goes on and on and on.
- manigandham 7y ago
  That's a strange way to look at it since the corporations have a much better ratio of wins to losses and have to manage profitability. Regardless, the issue is government spending, not collection. I don't see how aggregating even more money into a few politicians is somehow going to solve anything, or what difference a few billion will make when the country spends trillions.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    It's simple. Fund healthcare, education, earned income tax credits, student loan forgiveness, early childhood education, green energy, carbon sequestration. Fund the IRS so the tax code is enforced for the wealthy as vigorously as it is enforced for the poor. It's not hard to find huge societal wins that can be had with increased spending.

lightedman 7y ago

HN, you're supposed to be sharing news stories. When you put up on your front page material that is behind paywalls for various reasons, you degrade the ability for the community to actually discuss the story. If it's behind a paywall, ban it immediately if you are unable to find a second source. Your ability to actually have a meaningful conversation dies rapidly with this nonsense. No, I should NOT have to turn off private mode, or use Temporary containers, or any other stupid workaround in order to be able to read a story and then be able to actually have a discussion here regarding it. I click a link, I expect it to load fully. Period. @dang @stcb

big_chungus 7y ago

Wealth taxes are a bad idea. We already have one (inflation), which is a nasty way to bypass the electorate and hits the poor hardest, but I don't think an explicit one is any better. It seems to come from the Sanders-and-company position of "billionaires should not exist"; many appear to believe that morally, even were everyone else well-off, someone having that much more is simply wrong. _Why_ is a "wealth tax" any better? Why shouldn't I be worried about the precedent of the government taking someone's assets? This seems bad for the same reasons civil forfeiture is bad. Secondarily, I fail to understand the defense of such a policy by the "fair share" argument. Can someone explain? Here's how I see it: I am splitting a pizza among myself and seven friends. I cut it into eight pieces. My "fair share" is one piece, and does not change because someone else is hungrier. However, what the "fair share" of the "one percent" is, according to some people, seems to scale based on how many programs said people want to implement and how much they cost. Before anyone goes after my analogy, please excuse it; I understand that it doesn't fit perfectly, that not everyone has the same number of slices to start with, that the pie is not of constant size, ad nauseum. But even if I am re-distributing pizza from those who have twice as much to those who have half as much, the "just" amount doesn't fluctuate based on the relative hunger of the people in question; why, then, should the "fair share" increase because there are more things which people wish to fund? The taxes seem to be devised to keep up with the policies, rather than the government taking each person's "fair share" and doing as much as possible. Effectively, it seems as though some people believe every dollar past a certain amount is part of a cash reserve with which politicians may fund things. This doesn't really seem "fair".

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
LOL. > We already have a wealth tax (inflation) > which [...] hits the poor hardest. A wealth tax does not hit the poor hardest.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Inflation does. The poor don't have financial advisors, stock trading, etc.; many keep money in cash. Sources: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inflation-may-hit-the-poor-hardest/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inflation-may-hit-the-p... https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/why-inflation-hits-poor-hardest-11684646 https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/why-inflation-hits-poor-hard... http://www.poverty.ac.uk/inflation-low-income-households-necessities-reports/inflation-%E2%80%98hits-poorest-families-hardest%E2%80%99 http://www.poverty.ac.uk/inflation-low-income-households-nec... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003517.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03... https://www.ft.com/content/77a36048-4ddd-11dd-820e-000077b07658 https://www.ft.com/content/77a36048-4ddd-11dd-820e-000077b07... https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Poor-hardest-hit-by-inflation-20140820 https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Poor-hardest-hit-by-inflation-... https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/how-poor-have-been-hit-hardest-inflation https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/how-poor-have-... https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/inflation-hits-the-poor-hardest-washington-post https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/inflation-... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-index-of-inflation-shows-poor-hardest-hit-6cvxs7dnd https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-index-of-inflation-sh... https://business.inquirer.net/151537/poorest-households-hardest-hit-by-inflation-say-economists https://business.inquirer.net/151537/poorest-households-hard...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rubyn00bie 7y ago

We have a system of checks and balances for our social system, but we have quite literally _none_ on our economic system. This inequality of systematic checks and balances on the economy has gradually, but fully, distorted the power structure in America. Most people in this country don't even understand that democracy and capitalism aren't the same thing... Or that we only ever serve out one of those, and it's factually not democracy. Why is that? Why do we say democracy and mean capitalism? Now without substantial adjustment to its ability to usurp and control power; it will remain perpetually imbalanced with economic power vastly outweighing the sum of our individual social power. People in this thread want to talk about how this potential tax isn't fair within the context of a corrupt system. Well, I can't argue against that, it likely isn't fair, but that system itself is exceptionally corrupt. So, to argue it within that context is to already have lost. This tax is fair because we have no checks and balances on our economy and this would be _the first_. This tax is fair because there are uncountable externalities that these individuals do not pay for and cannot pay for because it would be unreasonable burden for them to calculate it. If you want to see the swap drain, stop letting the rich fill it. Stop consolidating power into one vertical... Stop pointing at the government and saying "look at how shitty and corrupt it is," because that corruption is fueled by money. Distribute the money, distribute the power, and a lot of this bullshit will fix itself. ... I'm done, this brought my headache back.

apta 7y ago

What seems to pass many (smart) people, is that fundamentally an interest-based economy like we have today is going to lead to these large gaps in inequality due to the predatory nature of interest. Instead of trying to patch the situation with different taxes, people should work on moving away from an interest-based economy into a system that is based on risk/reward sharing.