5 ms·

"Don't hate the player hate the game," is what comes to my mind. I would guess it's all legal. It is still good to have transparency, which might potentially c

"Don't hate the player hate the game," is what comes to my mind. I would guess it's all legal. It is still good to have transparency, which might potentially change things. I am not so sure though. After all, politicans are usually rich as well. But: All of these super-rich have probably created many, many jobs. I guess all-in-all it is a positive game for society.

vkou 5y ago
> I would guess it's all legal. When it's all secret, we can't make an informed decision on whether or not it should be legal.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Publicly release your own tax return first then. Be the change you want to see.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Nothing interesting in them. Wage income, standard deductions, some realized cap losses from a few stock sales. Looks like any other tax return. What bit of information do you expect that tax return add to the conversation of "Are the rich evading taxes?"
    - imgabe 5y ago
      We have a whole section of the government dedicated to figuring out whether people are evading taxes and then pursuing them for it. It could use some more funding, but that’s the appropriate way to do it. What are you going to add by having uninformed members of the public inspecting tax returns they don’t understand? Keep in mind there are people who turn down raises because they think being in a higher tax bracket will cause them to lose money. These are the geniuses you want to catch tax evaders?
      - vkou 5y ago
        > What are you going to add by having uninformed members of the public inspecting tax returns they don’t understand? Nobody's saying these people are illegaly evading taxes. The question is: "Should what they are doing be legal?". And that is absolutely a question for a layman. That's what representative democracy is all about. We get to collectively decide what is appropriate, and inappropriate in our society. Enforcement of the rules is for an unelected executive and judiciary, with limited public input. Determining the rules is for an elected legislature, with significant public input. There is no government department responsible for determining whether or not the current tax code is fair. We, the public, get to decide that.
        imgabe 5y ago
        Ok, the question you proposed to answer in your previous comment was “Are the rich evading taxes?” which I took to mean the public should be assessing the current legality of what individual rich people are doing. Various tax strategies can be and are made public without needing to dox anyone. We are currently debating about them right now. So what do we gain by opening up everyone to identity theft and fraud?
- kapp_in_life 5y ago
  What's secret? Income and capital gains brackets are public knowledge. Is who has the money really that important? If you think income over 100,000 should be taxed higher, you can already use the current brackets as reference(and compare to what other countries use, for example).
  - jasonshaev 5y ago
    The tax laws are public, but it's hard for most of us to understand how those laws apply in practice to people whose taxes are radically more complicated than most, and are prepared by the best tax experts money can buy. We also don't know the inputs. I think there is public interest in seeing how the tax code works in practice. I'd wager the results are a lot of different than the average person naively assumes.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > What's secret? Income and capital gains brackets are public knowledge. That you are speaking about income and capital gains brackets indicates that you don't actually know how the rich hide their money from the tax man. It, at a first approximation, gets laundered through foundations and into trusts, that they retain control of, but don't really pay either set of taxes on.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As a point of order "we" don't make these decisions at all. We elect people who do. And, you can support something being legal/illegal on principle alone.
  - vkou 5y ago
    It's hard to argue for legal changes, when you can't even describe the problem. Bill says "The rich should pay more taxes". Bob says "No, they shouldn't, they pay plenty." Neither actually has any idea of how much in taxes the rich actually pay. You can't have an informed discussion in that situation.
istorical 5y ago
I'm sure many serfs felt they same way about the local baron.
jakelazaroff 5y ago
At a certain level of wealth, you are the game. Amazon’s famous HQ2 contest was literally about which city would bend its own tax laws to benefit them most.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  If only they got something in return for providing those incentives...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- shoto_io 5y ago
  That’s certainly a fair point. However, your example of HQ2 didn't play out well, did it?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
paulpauper 5y ago
yeah but that assumes the game is fair. the evidence suggests it is not as fair as it shoudl be
nextstep 5y ago
some of these players have had a major hand in setting the rules of this game in their favor
handrous 5y ago
> But: All of these super-rich have probably created many, many jobs. I guess all-in-all it is a positive game for society. Pinning the credit for job-creation on the rich is absurd. They'd have no motivation to hire anyone without demand, which is something that others provide. Seem absurd? Yeah, of course it is, but keep the capital but take away the demand and see how long those jobs stick around. Lots of capital and little demand, few jobs created. Lots of demand and little capital... well, give it some time, and not even very much, and you'll have tons of capital and lots of jobs, both. So, which perspective, exactly, is absurd? (nb the judges will accept "both, equally" and "both, but crediting the super-rich with job creation is the more absurd of the two" as correct answers)

vkou 5y ago

> I would guess it's all legal. When it's all secret, we can't make an informed decision on whether or not it should be legal.

imgabe 5y ago
Publicly release your own tax return first then. Be the change you want to see.
- vkou 5y ago
  Nothing interesting in them. Wage income, standard deductions, some realized cap losses from a few stock sales. Looks like any other tax return. What bit of information do you expect that tax return add to the conversation of "Are the rich evading taxes?"
  - imgabe 5y ago
    We have a whole section of the government dedicated to figuring out whether people are evading taxes and then pursuing them for it. It could use some more funding, but that’s the appropriate way to do it. What are you going to add by having uninformed members of the public inspecting tax returns they don’t understand? Keep in mind there are people who turn down raises because they think being in a higher tax bracket will cause them to lose money. These are the geniuses you want to catch tax evaders?
    - vkou 5y ago
      > What are you going to add by having uninformed members of the public inspecting tax returns they don’t understand? Nobody's saying these people are illegaly evading taxes. The question is: "Should what they are doing be legal?". And that is absolutely a question for a layman. That's what representative democracy is all about. We get to collectively decide what is appropriate, and inappropriate in our society. Enforcement of the rules is for an unelected executive and judiciary, with limited public input. Determining the rules is for an elected legislature, with significant public input. There is no government department responsible for determining whether or not the current tax code is fair. We, the public, get to decide that.
      - imgabe 5y ago
        Ok, the question you proposed to answer in your previous comment was “Are the rich evading taxes?” which I took to mean the public should be assessing the current legality of what individual rich people are doing. Various tax strategies can be and are made public without needing to dox anyone. We are currently debating about them right now. So what do we gain by opening up everyone to identity theft and fraud?
kapp_in_life 5y ago
What's secret? Income and capital gains brackets are public knowledge. Is who has the money really that important? If you think income over 100,000 should be taxed higher, you can already use the current brackets as reference(and compare to what other countries use, for example).
- jasonshaev 5y ago
  The tax laws are public, but it's hard for most of us to understand how those laws apply in practice to people whose taxes are radically more complicated than most, and are prepared by the best tax experts money can buy. We also don't know the inputs. I think there is public interest in seeing how the tax code works in practice. I'd wager the results are a lot of different than the average person naively assumes.
- vkou 5y ago
  > What's secret? Income and capital gains brackets are public knowledge. That you are speaking about income and capital gains brackets indicates that you don't actually know how the rich hide their money from the tax man. It, at a first approximation, gets laundered through foundations and into trusts, that they retain control of, but don't really pay either set of taxes on.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
As a point of order "we" don't make these decisions at all. We elect people who do. And, you can support something being legal/illegal on principle alone.
- vkou 5y ago
  It's hard to argue for legal changes, when you can't even describe the problem. Bill says "The rich should pay more taxes". Bob says "No, they shouldn't, they pay plenty." Neither actually has any idea of how much in taxes the rich actually pay. You can't have an informed discussion in that situation.

istorical 5y ago

I'm sure many serfs felt they same way about the local baron.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

At a certain level of wealth, you are the game. Amazon’s famous HQ2 contest was literally about which city would bend its own tax laws to benefit them most.

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
If only they got something in return for providing those incentives...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
shoto_io 5y ago
That’s certainly a fair point. However, your example of HQ2 didn't play out well, did it?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

paulpauper 5y ago

yeah but that assumes the game is fair. the evidence suggests it is not as fair as it shoudl be

nextstep 5y ago

some of these players have had a major hand in setting the rules of this game in their favor

handrous 5y ago

> But: All of these super-rich have probably created many, many jobs. I guess all-in-all it is a positive game for society. Pinning the credit for job-creation on the rich is absurd. They'd have no motivation to hire anyone without demand, which is something that others provide. Seem absurd? Yeah, of course it is, but keep the capital but take away the demand and see how long those jobs stick around. Lots of capital and little demand, few jobs created. Lots of demand and little capital... well, give it some time, and not even very much, and you'll have tons of capital and lots of jobs, both. So, which perspective, exactly, is absurd? (nb the judges will accept "both, equally" and "both, but crediting the super-rich with job creation is the more absurd of the two" as correct answers)