5 ms·

As a naturalized US citizen whose family doesn't own a home anywhere on Earth and is actively trying to build wealth- FUCK NO to heavier taxes. Y'all got yours

by swman 5y ago

As a naturalized US citizen whose family doesn't own a home anywhere on Earth and is actively trying to build wealth- FUCK NO to heavier taxes. Y'all got yours, now what - screw me? I want to build my wealth - give people like me a 5 year tax break or something instead. I can't afford to live where I work (California) unless I'm willing to live in a shitty area with high crime and terrible schools.

horns4lyfe 5y ago
The vast majority of government policy is written by and intended to benefit those that already have theirs. People these days seem to think politics is some kind of moral battle, when it’s really mostly just people trying to protect their wealth.
hndamien 5y ago
You can target taxes such that they don't hit poor people.
- csomar 5y ago
  I don't think your parent poster is poor but prices are too high for even middle-income people in California.
  - hndamien 5y ago
    Well, the greater point is that you can target taxes.
    - jhickok 5y ago
      Well yeah but the struggle is still those with incredible amounts of money locked away in static capital. We can't rightly liquidate capital assets can we?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
aceazzameen 5y ago
Tax Brackets. Taxes need to target only those wealthy enough who are already in the game. I don't get why people don't understand that.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  What taxes would you raise? Raise property taxes? Raise income taxes for the 1%? Put a special tax when you sell your home?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    I'd implement a land value tax, tax capital gains as income, or higher, and implement a wealth tax.
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Treat loans using securities as collateral as a capital gain or income, and tax it as such.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Wouldn't a land value tax hit the older poorer seniors the hardest? Those without an income and by not fault of their own they are forced to sell because the value of their house raised? Taxing capital gains on principle residences means people are less likely to move up to a better home which creates a problem for first time home owners trying to enter the market as no supply exists. Wealth tax requires you to know everyone's wealth. How are you going to get that information / verify on a yearly basis.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    wealth tax, it’s literally in the name… maybe they should call it “absurdly rich person tax”… are you absurdly rich? if you aren’t… don’t worry about it, and if you are… pay more taxes and continue being richer than 99.9% of the planet
    - 5y ago
downut 5y ago
Right. You got in late, and... you're going to catch up, how? I'd really like to understand your wealth accumulation algorithm here because, having lived in CA, I wrote a bunch of programs to model my family's guessed at expected inflation, house appreciation, income appreciation, and tax scenarios, and I bailed. The people ahead of you are not going to let you climb that ladder, is what I decided. Twenty-five years later, yup. And I won that game. Survivor bias for sure, but now I'm sitting on what I didn't expect: prime real-estate for CA remote workers + retirees.
losteric 5y ago
Taxes fall in brackets. For example, income: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-brackets https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-... * $0 to $9,950 - 10% of taxable income * $9,951 to $40,525 - $995 plus 12% of the amount over $9,950 * ... * $523,601 or more - $157,804.25 plus 37% of the amount over $523,600 Problem? There is effectively no taxes on wealth, only income/capital gains. This system really screws over the middle class and immigrant families because we generally accumulate wealth through income... meanwhile Bezos can passively "earn" billions per year through his prior ownership of Amazon shares, with an effective tax rate of 0%. The low interest rates further benefit the rich because they can take out low-interest loans collateralized by assets (that is, Jeff can take out a $100M loan to get liquidity, without liquidating $100M in shares - he only needs to sell enough to pay off interest [the portion sold is taxed as income]).
- chii 5y ago
  > There is effectively no taxes on wealth because the wealth is already taxed - how else did you acquire that wealth without paying taxes first? To tax wealth is to prevent accumulation of wealth, and i think that has bad, unintended consequences. On paper it sounds good, but like all things, this hurts some group of people more than others, and just because that group being hurt isn't "your" group of people, it doesn't mean they deserve it. Taxing income (of which capital gains is one type) is fine - adjusting the brackets is fine too. But a lot of times, people come into the more-taxation side assuming that more taxation means better society - but i can tell you it isn't true. Better politicians comes first.
  - skolsuper 5y ago
    > just because that group being hurt isn't "your" group of people, it doesn't mean they deserve it. When the group is "the most successful in the current system", it's not exclusionary / discriminatory or exploitable. Whether their success is due to luck or smarts or inheritance, they succeeded in the current system by definition, because there is only one system. Therefore, they can be asked to pay proportionally more to maintain it. Furthermore, the bargain "to pay less tax, be less successful" is not one that any rational actor would make. It's inherently fair. The only part you could reasonably quibble with imo is using wealth as a measure of success, but since it is the currency that taxes deal in -- one alternative: government takes some of your children -- it's the one that makes the most ssense. Still, those in society that find some way to life satisfaction without accumulating wealth do have an advantage in the proposed system. Maybe that's something we should encourage?
d--b 5y ago
Dude, I am never suggesting that people like you pay more taxes. Rather you should benefit from tax retrieved from the wealthiest. And by wealthiest I mean a lot wealtheir than you.

by swman 5y ago

horns4lyfe 5y ago

The vast majority of government policy is written by and intended to benefit those that already have theirs. People these days seem to think politics is some kind of moral battle, when it’s really mostly just people trying to protect their wealth.

hndamien 5y ago

You can target taxes such that they don't hit poor people.

csomar 5y ago
I don't think your parent poster is poor but prices are too high for even middle-income people in California.
- hndamien 5y ago
  Well, the greater point is that you can target taxes.
  - jhickok 5y ago
    Well yeah but the struggle is still those with incredible amounts of money locked away in static capital. We can't rightly liquidate capital assets can we?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

aceazzameen 5y ago

Tax Brackets. Taxes need to target only those wealthy enough who are already in the game. I don't get why people don't understand that.

ipaddr 5y ago
What taxes would you raise? Raise property taxes? Raise income taxes for the 1%? Put a special tax when you sell your home?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  I'd implement a land value tax, tax capital gains as income, or higher, and implement a wealth tax.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Treat loans using securities as collateral as a capital gain or income, and tax it as such.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Wouldn't a land value tax hit the older poorer seniors the hardest? Those without an income and by not fault of their own they are forced to sell because the value of their house raised? Taxing capital gains on principle residences means people are less likely to move up to a better home which creates a problem for first time home owners trying to enter the market as no supply exists. Wealth tax requires you to know everyone's wealth. How are you going to get that information / verify on a yearly basis.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  wealth tax, it’s literally in the name… maybe they should call it “absurdly rich person tax”… are you absurdly rich? if you aren’t… don’t worry about it, and if you are… pay more taxes and continue being richer than 99.9% of the planet
  - 5y ago

downut 5y ago

Right. You got in late, and... you're going to catch up, how? I'd really like to understand your wealth accumulation algorithm here because, having lived in CA, I wrote a bunch of programs to model my family's guessed at expected inflation, house appreciation, income appreciation, and tax scenarios, and I bailed. The people ahead of you are not going to let you climb that ladder, is what I decided. Twenty-five years later, yup. And I won that game. Survivor bias for sure, but now I'm sitting on what I didn't expect: prime real-estate for CA remote workers + retirees.

losteric 5y ago

Taxes fall in brackets. For example, income: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-brackets https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-... * $0 to $9,950 - 10% of taxable income * $9,951 to $40,525 - $995 plus 12% of the amount over $9,950 * ... * $523,601 or more - $157,804.25 plus 37% of the amount over $523,600 Problem? There is effectively no taxes on wealth, only income/capital gains. This system really screws over the middle class and immigrant families because we generally accumulate wealth through income... meanwhile Bezos can passively "earn" billions per year through his prior ownership of Amazon shares, with an effective tax rate of 0%. The low interest rates further benefit the rich because they can take out low-interest loans collateralized by assets (that is, Jeff can take out a $100M loan to get liquidity, without liquidating $100M in shares - he only needs to sell enough to pay off interest [the portion sold is taxed as income]).

chii 5y ago
> There is effectively no taxes on wealth because the wealth is already taxed - how else did you acquire that wealth without paying taxes first? To tax wealth is to prevent accumulation of wealth, and i think that has bad, unintended consequences. On paper it sounds good, but like all things, this hurts some group of people more than others, and just because that group being hurt isn't "your" group of people, it doesn't mean they deserve it. Taxing income (of which capital gains is one type) is fine - adjusting the brackets is fine too. But a lot of times, people come into the more-taxation side assuming that more taxation means better society - but i can tell you it isn't true. Better politicians comes first.
- skolsuper 5y ago
  > just because that group being hurt isn't "your" group of people, it doesn't mean they deserve it. When the group is "the most successful in the current system", it's not exclusionary / discriminatory or exploitable. Whether their success is due to luck or smarts or inheritance, they succeeded in the current system by definition, because there is only one system. Therefore, they can be asked to pay proportionally more to maintain it. Furthermore, the bargain "to pay less tax, be less successful" is not one that any rational actor would make. It's inherently fair. The only part you could reasonably quibble with imo is using wealth as a measure of success, but since it is the currency that taxes deal in -- one alternative: government takes some of your children -- it's the one that makes the most ssense. Still, those in society that find some way to life satisfaction without accumulating wealth do have an advantage in the proposed system. Maybe that's something we should encourage?

d--b 5y ago

Dude, I am never suggesting that people like you pay more taxes. Rather you should benefit from tax retrieved from the wealthiest. And by wealthiest I mean a lot wealtheir than you.