7 ms·

It doesn't need to be that complicated. Just increase taxes on the ultra wealthy to restore some semblance of equality. it doesn't need to be communist russia.

It doesn't need to be that complicated. Just increase taxes on the ultra wealthy to restore some semblance of equality. it doesn't need to be communist russia. Just a little more money going around.

unionjack22 6y ago
It’s really frustrating how simple and true this is yet difficult to brand and market correctly.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s difficult to brand and market correctly, Bernie Sanders did a great job. Edit: Hacker News, where even mentioning Bernie Sanders gets you downvoted.
boh 6y ago
The ultra rich don't pay the current tax rate, why would raising a tax they don't pay have any effect? Until there's an aggressive international agreement on closing tax loopholes, raising the taxes only impacts the barely-rich (doctors, lawyers, etc).
- bsanr 6y ago
  It can be argued that the barely-rich are also a huge part of "the problem." Collectively, they wield a great deal of influence through their wealth, networks, and savvy, and instead of using it to solve "the problem," they are largely involved in an intra-class competition to secure the next open actually-rich spot (or to simply maintain their standard of living, and particularly that of their children, regardless of merit). Fortunes that could go to feeding dozens of children, educating dozens of youths, housing dozens of homeless men and women, instead go to ensuring that a handful of people can keep up with their neighbors in vying for a spot at Yale for their boy or girl. Sure, in the process many salaries are paid, but you could also use that same amount of money and have the recipients of that aid number in the dozens or hundreds rather than be a handful or so. In the end, that spot at Yale will still be filled. The needle on the chances of it being Dr. and Mr. Irgendwas' child probably doesn't move that much, either.
  - boh 6y ago
    Hate to burst your bubble but if you're one of the 25% of Americans who has an undergraduate degree or above you're likely part of that barely-rich who are part of "the problem" (from a global perspective making over $50k a year counts as barely rich). No one wants to admit to being a part of some "elite" minority because there's always someone else to blame who's higher up on the ladder. Ultimately policy makes change not some expectation for individual morality.
    - rualca 6y ago
      > No one wants to admit to being a part of some "elite" minority because there's always someone else to blame who's higher up on the ladder. The problem with that point of view is that ignores the corollary that most of the people are not held do blame because there's always someone else which is privileged and has direct control over their lives and livelihood. Complaining that someone in the US earning $50k/year is responsible for the current state of affairs, when they can't even control their own lives, is miopic and sheer idiocy.
      - boh 6y ago
        Agreed, that's the point. How do you think the doctors and lawyers feel (or to be more specific to HN--the people doing well in the tech sector)? Having a finger pointed at you for living your life without "doing something" when you're not part of the country leadership is an aspect of the "change" myth we're often subject to (i.e. it's your fault things are bad, not the actual people in charge). *also depending on where you live, even within the US, $50k can be a decent salary.
        bsanr 6y ago
        Doctors and lawyers are not making $50k a year. $50k is not even the average annual income in this country; it is not the income of the barely-wealthy. This is the problem: people making multiples of $50k live fundamentally different lives from those making sub-$50k. They have money to burn, and they do just that, often on self-serving goods and services with limited ROI compared to what the same amount of money would buy people with more basic concerns. However, they want to align themselves with struggling families and individuals culturally, because it absolves them of responsibility for changing private and public policy towards the nature of labor and welfare, and provides cover for them to continue their mindless march into the Moloch of a false meritocracy. If you're paying $30k-$50k a year to send your kid to a private school, we're not talking about the same kind of family as a people working one or two jobs sub-$20/hr just to make rent. No one listens to the latter; if you're the former, you have positioned yourself socially to be heard by the decision-makers and policy-executors. If you don't say anything except in your own defense, knowing what an educated person should know about poverty and suffering in America, even somehow envisioning yourself as among those suffering, that's a choice.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The ultra rich don't pay the current tax rate, why would raising a tax they don't pay have any effect? The ultra rich don't pay the current nominal income tax rate, because their income isn’t of the kind subject to income taxes, much less the additional taxes levied on labor income. The simple solution to that is to wipe away the distinctions about source of income in taxation policy (for payroll taxes, that means also eliminating limitations in source of income that qualifies for benefits and the quantity of annual income taxed, but that doesn't prevent, e.g., additional “bend points” in benefit formulas to limit the benefit impact of larger incomes.) > Until there's an aggressive international agreement on closing tax loopholes, raising the taxes only impacts the barely-rich (doctors, lawyers, etc). That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make. Equalizing taxes on capital and labor income by doing away with payroll tax limits and favorable treatment of long-term capital gains while dealing with non-repeatable income (like most long-term capital gains for any but the ultra-rich) by allowing both advance tax recognition of anticipated gains and deferment of windfall gains over a period of years would impact the haut bourgeoisie, but have only modest, and mixed, impacts on the barely rich.
  - apta 6y ago
    > That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make. That's what Biden wants to do, terrible idea. Removing favorable treatment of long term capital gains is also a terrible idea. Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax), but people will settle for favorable treatment compared to income tax.
    - rualca 6y ago
      > Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax) (...) Why? Your income is disproportionally dependent on investments and expenditure made by society to pave the way to your ability to generate income. It's fair that those who benefit the most from society also help the most to preserve its uplifting impact on the people.
      - 6y ago
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This is a strawman. It's not impossible to tax people.
hliyan 6y ago
Question: what do you think about a tax rate determined by wealth, rather than the first derivative of wealth (i.e. income)? When a person whose net worth is $10,000 earns $5,000, should they be taxed the same way a person whose net worth is $1000,000,000 earns $5,000 is taxed?
- anchpop 6y ago
  The reason your tax rate should be determined by your income, rather than the first integration of your income (i.e. wealth), is because just having wealth isn't hurting anyone. If I spend every evening in my garage fixing up an old car, and increase its value from $1000 to $2000, I've increased my wealth but I haven't negatively (or positively) affected anyone else. It might be useful as a means of generating government revenue but it isn't something that needs to be taxed on its own. Spending money, however, does affect other people - it reorganizes their incentives to produce more of the thing you spent money on. This can lead to weird situations where a homeless person has 0 effect on market incentives even though all they want is a blanket, but a rich person can motivate tens of thousands of people to assemble her another yacht to leave at her vacation home. So you can make your car aa valueble as you like in the privacy of your own home, but as soon as you want to use that to start affecting market incentives (by selling it then spending the money), prepare to get taxed. Technically a consumption tax would be better than an income tax, but most people spend most of their income so it isn't that different and it's easier to make an income tax progressive
  - devdas 6y ago
    Having wealth does influence the ability to spend money and work on things like regulatory capture rather than productive investments.
    - anchpop 6y ago
      Wealth doesn't, income does. If I buy a car and work on it to add $1000 to its value, I've increased my wealth but have not changed my income or purchasing power until I realize those gains, at which point my $1000 income is taxed (as it should be)
missedthecue 6y ago
Punitive taxes on a minority group to satiate the flames of envy? That doesn't sound like productive policy.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Strawman. Also, the rich are not a minority. they project so much power that to call them a minority is almost racist. It isn't about envy. I don't want everyone to have luxury cars and steak dinners every night. But I also don't think we should be subsidizing wal-mart, amazon, megacorps who continually rape our country and avoid taxes. We don't need to tax that much more to help balance the scales. Of course, we can keep ignoring it. And then there will be blood. Look at history - it will come.

It doesn't need to be that complicated. Just increase taxes on the ultra wealthy to restore some semblance of equality. it doesn't need to be communist russia. Just a little more money going around.

unionjack22 6y ago

It’s really frustrating how simple and true this is yet difficult to brand and market correctly.

randmeerkat 6y ago
I don’t think it’s difficult to brand and market correctly, Bernie Sanders did a great job. Edit: Hacker News, where even mentioning Bernie Sanders gets you downvoted.

boh 6y ago

The ultra rich don't pay the current tax rate, why would raising a tax they don't pay have any effect? Until there's an aggressive international agreement on closing tax loopholes, raising the taxes only impacts the barely-rich (doctors, lawyers, etc).

bsanr 6y ago
It can be argued that the barely-rich are also a huge part of "the problem." Collectively, they wield a great deal of influence through their wealth, networks, and savvy, and instead of using it to solve "the problem," they are largely involved in an intra-class competition to secure the next open actually-rich spot (or to simply maintain their standard of living, and particularly that of their children, regardless of merit). Fortunes that could go to feeding dozens of children, educating dozens of youths, housing dozens of homeless men and women, instead go to ensuring that a handful of people can keep up with their neighbors in vying for a spot at Yale for their boy or girl. Sure, in the process many salaries are paid, but you could also use that same amount of money and have the recipients of that aid number in the dozens or hundreds rather than be a handful or so. In the end, that spot at Yale will still be filled. The needle on the chances of it being Dr. and Mr. Irgendwas' child probably doesn't move that much, either.
- boh 6y ago
  Hate to burst your bubble but if you're one of the 25% of Americans who has an undergraduate degree or above you're likely part of that barely-rich who are part of "the problem" (from a global perspective making over $50k a year counts as barely rich). No one wants to admit to being a part of some "elite" minority because there's always someone else to blame who's higher up on the ladder. Ultimately policy makes change not some expectation for individual morality.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > No one wants to admit to being a part of some "elite" minority because there's always someone else to blame who's higher up on the ladder. The problem with that point of view is that ignores the corollary that most of the people are not held do blame because there's always someone else which is privileged and has direct control over their lives and livelihood. Complaining that someone in the US earning $50k/year is responsible for the current state of affairs, when they can't even control their own lives, is miopic and sheer idiocy.
    - boh 6y ago
      Agreed, that's the point. How do you think the doctors and lawyers feel (or to be more specific to HN--the people doing well in the tech sector)? Having a finger pointed at you for living your life without "doing something" when you're not part of the country leadership is an aspect of the "change" myth we're often subject to (i.e. it's your fault things are bad, not the actual people in charge). *also depending on where you live, even within the US, $50k can be a decent salary.
      - bsanr 6y ago
        Doctors and lawyers are not making $50k a year. $50k is not even the average annual income in this country; it is not the income of the barely-wealthy. This is the problem: people making multiples of $50k live fundamentally different lives from those making sub-$50k. They have money to burn, and they do just that, often on self-serving goods and services with limited ROI compared to what the same amount of money would buy people with more basic concerns. However, they want to align themselves with struggling families and individuals culturally, because it absolves them of responsibility for changing private and public policy towards the nature of labor and welfare, and provides cover for them to continue their mindless march into the Moloch of a false meritocracy. If you're paying $30k-$50k a year to send your kid to a private school, we're not talking about the same kind of family as a people working one or two jobs sub-$20/hr just to make rent. No one listens to the latter; if you're the former, you have positioned yourself socially to be heard by the decision-makers and policy-executors. If you don't say anything except in your own defense, knowing what an educated person should know about poverty and suffering in America, even somehow envisioning yourself as among those suffering, that's a choice.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The ultra rich don't pay the current tax rate, why would raising a tax they don't pay have any effect? The ultra rich don't pay the current nominal income tax rate, because their income isn’t of the kind subject to income taxes, much less the additional taxes levied on labor income. The simple solution to that is to wipe away the distinctions about source of income in taxation policy (for payroll taxes, that means also eliminating limitations in source of income that qualifies for benefits and the quantity of annual income taxed, but that doesn't prevent, e.g., additional “bend points” in benefit formulas to limit the benefit impact of larger incomes.) > Until there's an aggressive international agreement on closing tax loopholes, raising the taxes only impacts the barely-rich (doctors, lawyers, etc). That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make. Equalizing taxes on capital and labor income by doing away with payroll tax limits and favorable treatment of long-term capital gains while dealing with non-repeatable income (like most long-term capital gains for any but the ultra-rich) by allowing both advance tax recognition of anticipated gains and deferment of windfall gains over a period of years would impact the haut bourgeoisie, but have only modest, and mixed, impacts on the barely rich.
- apta 6y ago
  > That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make. That's what Biden wants to do, terrible idea. Removing favorable treatment of long term capital gains is also a terrible idea. Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax), but people will settle for favorable treatment compared to income tax.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax) (...) Why? Your income is disproportionally dependent on investments and expenditure made by society to pave the way to your ability to generate income. It's fair that those who benefit the most from society also help the most to preserve its uplifting impact on the people.
    - 6y ago
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
This is a strawman. It's not impossible to tax people.

hliyan 6y ago

Question: what do you think about a tax rate determined by wealth, rather than the first derivative of wealth (i.e. income)? When a person whose net worth is $10,000 earns $5,000, should they be taxed the same way a person whose net worth is $1000,000,000 earns $5,000 is taxed?

anchpop 6y ago
The reason your tax rate should be determined by your income, rather than the first integration of your income (i.e. wealth), is because just having wealth isn't hurting anyone. If I spend every evening in my garage fixing up an old car, and increase its value from $1000 to $2000, I've increased my wealth but I haven't negatively (or positively) affected anyone else. It might be useful as a means of generating government revenue but it isn't something that needs to be taxed on its own. Spending money, however, does affect other people - it reorganizes their incentives to produce more of the thing you spent money on. This can lead to weird situations where a homeless person has 0 effect on market incentives even though all they want is a blanket, but a rich person can motivate tens of thousands of people to assemble her another yacht to leave at her vacation home. So you can make your car aa valueble as you like in the privacy of your own home, but as soon as you want to use that to start affecting market incentives (by selling it then spending the money), prepare to get taxed. Technically a consumption tax would be better than an income tax, but most people spend most of their income so it isn't that different and it's easier to make an income tax progressive
- devdas 6y ago
  Having wealth does influence the ability to spend money and work on things like regulatory capture rather than productive investments.
  - anchpop 6y ago
    Wealth doesn't, income does. If I buy a car and work on it to add $1000 to its value, I've increased my wealth but have not changed my income or purchasing power until I realize those gains, at which point my $1000 income is taxed (as it should be)

missedthecue 6y ago

Punitive taxes on a minority group to satiate the flames of envy? That doesn't sound like productive policy.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Strawman. Also, the rich are not a minority. they project so much power that to call them a minority is almost racist. It isn't about envy. I don't want everyone to have luxury cars and steak dinners every night. But I also don't think we should be subsidizing wal-mart, amazon, megacorps who continually rape our country and avoid taxes. We don't need to tax that much more to help balance the scales. Of course, we can keep ignoring it. And then there will be blood. Look at history - it will come.