6 ms·

Why do you think that minimizing taxes becomes their #1 priority? What actually happens is that they tell the guy handling your finances to save them some money

Why do you think that minimizing taxes becomes their #1 priority? What actually happens is that they tell the guy handling your finances to save them some money, and that's their problem. And given their fee structure, they'll go as far as they need to, even though the rich person in question doesn't really think about their taxes all that much. This is the real multiplicative effect of being really rich: It's not knowing that you'll never be short of money, but how many things you don't even have to think about, because they are handled in your stead. This is where I'd expect AI will change the world for consumers first: The tasks that now require either a lot of energy, or hiring an assistant or eight, becoming so cheap a good chunk of middle class will be able to afford it.

adastra22 2y ago
Nah I’ve met a fair number of mega-high wealth individuals. They would go so far as to pick a materially worse deal that allowed them to pay no taxes, over a higher payout that required some taxes paid. It is nuts.
- valval 2y ago
  It might be they’re just against taxes. How could that be a surprising thing to you? In democracies, the massive bulk of people are voting to steal the money of the rich. That’s not cool.
  - GavinMcG 2y ago
    They’re also voting for the policies that enable safe wealth accumulation and preservation, so “steal” seems like the wrong word—though there may well be some wealthy people who feel stolen from inasmuchas they’d rather live in a less secure society where they could try to be the winning warlord. Most capitalists see the value of a stable consumer class, though, backed up by a legal system and economic policy that injects money to prevent the collapse of their income-drivers.
    - waihtis 2y ago
      They're literally plotting policies of "wealth redistribution" in the EU at least. The idiot bureaucrats can call it what they want, but forcibly redistributing your assets more and more to other people makes it thievery.
      - Muromec 2y ago
        The longer people will call it communist plot and insist on not paying taxes, the higher is the probability of having the actual communist plot and being exiled to the Moon by a popular vote.
        valval 2y ago
        It’s a shame it seems to come to that about once every hundred years. We’ve won the war against the communists before though, and we’ll do it again.
        morbicer 2y ago
        Maybe if we don't strip poor people of any chance of getting out of poverty they won't turn to communism. If you chase an animal in the corner, it will fight back. You can shoot it and win but don't be surprised if the situation repeats.
        labcomputer 2y ago
        The problem is that communism (as it is practiced) forces everyone into poverty, except for the tiny fraction of the population who comprise the elite of the politburo.
        morbicer 2y ago
        Yes, communism is horrible, I totally agree. What I am alluding to is that some form of social democracy can bring long term stability, thus minimizing the risk of people radicalizing.
  - frail_figure 2y ago
    > In democracies, the massive bulk of people are voting to steal the money of the rich. That’s not cool. Lol, yes, steal. Hi Elon!
  - copperx 2y ago
    That sounds really, really cool to me. And it's an abuse of language to call it stealing.
    - waihtis 2y ago
      It's not, it's literally what it is. Per default, accumulating wealth contains risks for the individual attempting to do so, and increasingly more and more of the wealth is stripped away while reducing none of the risk. Thats absolutely theft.
      - T4iga 2y ago
        Fulfilling your obligation to a society that brought you riches, however much risk you took and however much hard work vs luck that was, is not theft. Fueling that society, so that it can persist for your well-being is your obligation as a citizen. If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society. I think that is a very destructive world view.
        roenxi 2y ago
        > If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society. No, if you fully play out his argument then the least wealthy deserve not to have their wealth stolen. His argument is that theft is bad, it isn't a complex argument with unexpected implications. Although it does seem a bit faulty regardless, the amount of risk someone is taking has no bearing on whether taking their stuff is theft.
        valval 2y ago
        The line of thinking we’re trying to get across to you here is best put like this I find; even if 99% of the village thinks it’s a good idea to march into the most productive individual’s house and rob it clean, it doesn’t become morally right to do so.
  - intended 2y ago
    In democracies, the minority who own the bulk of wealth are lobbying to ensure they avoid paying taxes. That’s not cool. Firstly - many developed countries have higher tax rates than America. Secondly - the issue isn’t being rich. The issue is that tax avoidance for so many years has resulted in absurd levels of wealth capture. Thirdly - no polity level discussion can happen effectively, because that wealth ensures productive discussion is mired in controversy by the time it reaches the voting public.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Firstly - many developed countries have higher tax rates than America. This is mostly not true. People are often confused into comparing US federal taxes to the totality of taxes in other countries, but US states levy taxes too. The total of state and federal taxes is often in excess of 50%, which is higher than the OECD average. > The issue is that tax avoidance for so many years has resulted in absurd levels of wealth capture. The primary cause of this is not tax avoidance, it's market concentration. If your company has 0.1% of the industry and is worth a billion dollars and you pay a 0% effective tax rate, you have a billion dollars. If your company has 50% of the industry and is worth $500 billion dollars and you pay a 70% effective tax rate, you still have $150 billion, i.e. 150 times as much. Also, effective tax rates have never actually been 70%. > Thirdly - no polity level discussion can happen effectively, because that wealth ensures productive discussion is mired in controversy by the time it reaches the voting public. The real problem is that the tax system is intentionally convoluted to conceal from the public who is paying what and where the money is going. This benefits the rich in many cases, but it mostly benefits Congress, who can lie to people about what's going on to get their votes even while screwing them in particular. This is not a partisan issue; both parties want more money and want it to go to their cronies, so neither of them wants to simplify the tax system into something sensible and harder to game, because it would interfere with the diversion of everyone's tax money to the politically connected.
      - intended 2y ago
        >This is mostly not true. I went to double check, and the best answer is that America collects less tax/GDP than its peers. Even accounting for state and federal taxation. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxe.... > Taxes on personal income and business profits made up 48 percent of total US tax revenue in 2021, a higher share than in most other OECD countries, where such taxes averaged 34 percent of the total (figure 2). Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand were the only OECD countries where over half of total revenue was generated from such taxes. > In the United States, taxes on just the income and profits of individuals (not businesses) generated 42 percent of total tax revenue, compared with 27 percent for all other OECD countries combined. So that clarification is warranted. > Convoluted taxes This … I mostly agree that simpler tax codes are beneficial, I am not sure its complexity is the core reason discussion is difficult. Tax payment itself is made as painful as possible, so that it remains a focus of ire for citizens. Hmm. I suppose in the spirit of simplicity, it would be ideal to have an automated tax generation form, and a simple tax code - making it easier for people to just pay their taxes and get on with their life. And then have progressive taxes for people higher up the wealth ladder. > Market concentration Your point is that this is not the primary reasons for wealth disparity? I dont know - we are well aware of the kind of steps firms take to avoid paying taxes, and instead move them to tax havens. The numbers indicate that firms tend to pay much lower taxes in America compared to their OECD peers. Again - the point here is on “primary reasons” for wealth capture.
- chii 2y ago
  > They would go so far as to pick a materially worse deal that allowed them to pay no taxes, over a higher payout that required some taxes paid. I find that hard to believe. I highly suspect that the "materially worse" deal you speak of is simply less liquid cash, but more retained wealth.
  - intended 2y ago
    Given American anti tax sentiment, it isn’t surprising. Plus there is a concerted effort to maintain the narrative that the government should be starved, because the government is the most wasteful body that can be. Being rich isn’t just some sort of statistical metric - it’s also a clear cut option to have your principles and desires accommodated. It’s not hard to believe. To determine whether its 60-40 (tax avoidance - convenience optimization) would seem to be the question to pursue.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      FWIW this person was Canadian.
    - K0balt 2y ago
      Being wealthy unlocks the option to not be a rational actor with little or no real world consequences, enabling capricious urges and whim to be a significant factor in the decision making process. See: Elon musk.
      - andriesm 2y ago
        Or take people who are super competent, with strong ethics and world class bravery, and catapult them into the truly heroic! Think for example, Elon Musk!
        K0balt 2y ago
        I also think Elon has done great and important things for humanity, but to call him super- competent, ultra courageous, and heroic might be a pretty significant stretch. He seems to me to be an analytical thinker with 1st percentile intelligence, who struggles with emotional intelligence and impulse moderation. Probably a pretty fun guy to hang out with, but also an asshole more often than he should be. Nobody is even nearly perfect, and hero worship tends towards the delusional in most cases, so I tend to steer clear of thinking too good or poorly of anyone.
- ulnarkressty 2y ago
  Maybe it's like the same irrational aversion that people have to shipping fees. Amazon effect for the rich?
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  I can confirm that I’ve seen the same. I don’t think people have fully put together that the same personality type that was a slave owner prior to the 1900s is the same personality type of a venture founder, investor, venture, capitalist, banker, etc… That is to say their goal in getting rich is to have a dictatorship, not necessarily simply to have a nice boat and a house and raise a family The goal of the mega rich is the same as it always in history, which is to dominate enslave and basically shape the world to what they want it to look like without being intermediated by people with less power. Further the more wealth people have, in my personal experience, the less they want to have any constraints by other organizations, specifically governments they disagree with. If people haven’t, they should read about the “business plot”
  - e40 2y ago
    > If people haven’t, they should read about the “business plot” This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
    - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
      Yes
- sbochins 2y ago
  I doubt that’s true. But, I’d be interested in an actual example, if you have one. Rich folks tend to avoid taxation at all costs, since that tends to be one of the best ways to retain their wealth.

adastra22 2y ago

Nah I’ve met a fair number of mega-high wealth individuals. They would go so far as to pick a materially worse deal that allowed them to pay no taxes, over a higher payout that required some taxes paid. It is nuts.

valval 2y ago
It might be they’re just against taxes. How could that be a surprising thing to you? In democracies, the massive bulk of people are voting to steal the money of the rich. That’s not cool.
- GavinMcG 2y ago
  They’re also voting for the policies that enable safe wealth accumulation and preservation, so “steal” seems like the wrong word—though there may well be some wealthy people who feel stolen from inasmuchas they’d rather live in a less secure society where they could try to be the winning warlord. Most capitalists see the value of a stable consumer class, though, backed up by a legal system and economic policy that injects money to prevent the collapse of their income-drivers.
  - waihtis 2y ago
    They're literally plotting policies of "wealth redistribution" in the EU at least. The idiot bureaucrats can call it what they want, but forcibly redistributing your assets more and more to other people makes it thievery.
    - Muromec 2y ago
      The longer people will call it communist plot and insist on not paying taxes, the higher is the probability of having the actual communist plot and being exiled to the Moon by a popular vote.
      - valval 2y ago
        It’s a shame it seems to come to that about once every hundred years. We’ve won the war against the communists before though, and we’ll do it again.
        morbicer 2y ago
        Maybe if we don't strip poor people of any chance of getting out of poverty they won't turn to communism. If you chase an animal in the corner, it will fight back. You can shoot it and win but don't be surprised if the situation repeats.
        labcomputer 2y ago
        The problem is that communism (as it is practiced) forces everyone into poverty, except for the tiny fraction of the population who comprise the elite of the politburo.
        morbicer 2y ago
        Yes, communism is horrible, I totally agree. What I am alluding to is that some form of social democracy can bring long term stability, thus minimizing the risk of people radicalizing.
- frail_figure 2y ago
  > In democracies, the massive bulk of people are voting to steal the money of the rich. That’s not cool. Lol, yes, steal. Hi Elon!
- copperx 2y ago
  That sounds really, really cool to me. And it's an abuse of language to call it stealing.
  - waihtis 2y ago
    It's not, it's literally what it is. Per default, accumulating wealth contains risks for the individual attempting to do so, and increasingly more and more of the wealth is stripped away while reducing none of the risk. Thats absolutely theft.
    - T4iga 2y ago
      Fulfilling your obligation to a society that brought you riches, however much risk you took and however much hard work vs luck that was, is not theft. Fueling that society, so that it can persist for your well-being is your obligation as a citizen. If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society. I think that is a very destructive world view.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society. No, if you fully play out his argument then the least wealthy deserve not to have their wealth stolen. His argument is that theft is bad, it isn't a complex argument with unexpected implications. Although it does seem a bit faulty regardless, the amount of risk someone is taking has no bearing on whether taking their stuff is theft.
      - valval 2y ago
        The line of thinking we’re trying to get across to you here is best put like this I find; even if 99% of the village thinks it’s a good idea to march into the most productive individual’s house and rob it clean, it doesn’t become morally right to do so.
- intended 2y ago
  In democracies, the minority who own the bulk of wealth are lobbying to ensure they avoid paying taxes. That’s not cool. Firstly - many developed countries have higher tax rates than America. Secondly - the issue isn’t being rich. The issue is that tax avoidance for so many years has resulted in absurd levels of wealth capture. Thirdly - no polity level discussion can happen effectively, because that wealth ensures productive discussion is mired in controversy by the time it reaches the voting public.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Firstly - many developed countries have higher tax rates than America. This is mostly not true. People are often confused into comparing US federal taxes to the totality of taxes in other countries, but US states levy taxes too. The total of state and federal taxes is often in excess of 50%, which is higher than the OECD average. > The issue is that tax avoidance for so many years has resulted in absurd levels of wealth capture. The primary cause of this is not tax avoidance, it's market concentration. If your company has 0.1% of the industry and is worth a billion dollars and you pay a 0% effective tax rate, you have a billion dollars. If your company has 50% of the industry and is worth $500 billion dollars and you pay a 70% effective tax rate, you still have $150 billion, i.e. 150 times as much. Also, effective tax rates have never actually been 70%. > Thirdly - no polity level discussion can happen effectively, because that wealth ensures productive discussion is mired in controversy by the time it reaches the voting public. The real problem is that the tax system is intentionally convoluted to conceal from the public who is paying what and where the money is going. This benefits the rich in many cases, but it mostly benefits Congress, who can lie to people about what's going on to get their votes even while screwing them in particular. This is not a partisan issue; both parties want more money and want it to go to their cronies, so neither of them wants to simplify the tax system into something sensible and harder to game, because it would interfere with the diversion of everyone's tax money to the politically connected.
    - intended 2y ago
      >This is mostly not true. I went to double check, and the best answer is that America collects less tax/GDP than its peers. Even accounting for state and federal taxation. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxe.... > Taxes on personal income and business profits made up 48 percent of total US tax revenue in 2021, a higher share than in most other OECD countries, where such taxes averaged 34 percent of the total (figure 2). Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand were the only OECD countries where over half of total revenue was generated from such taxes. > In the United States, taxes on just the income and profits of individuals (not businesses) generated 42 percent of total tax revenue, compared with 27 percent for all other OECD countries combined. So that clarification is warranted. > Convoluted taxes This … I mostly agree that simpler tax codes are beneficial, I am not sure its complexity is the core reason discussion is difficult. Tax payment itself is made as painful as possible, so that it remains a focus of ire for citizens. Hmm. I suppose in the spirit of simplicity, it would be ideal to have an automated tax generation form, and a simple tax code - making it easier for people to just pay their taxes and get on with their life. And then have progressive taxes for people higher up the wealth ladder. > Market concentration Your point is that this is not the primary reasons for wealth disparity? I dont know - we are well aware of the kind of steps firms take to avoid paying taxes, and instead move them to tax havens. The numbers indicate that firms tend to pay much lower taxes in America compared to their OECD peers. Again - the point here is on “primary reasons” for wealth capture.
chii 2y ago
> They would go so far as to pick a materially worse deal that allowed them to pay no taxes, over a higher payout that required some taxes paid. I find that hard to believe. I highly suspect that the "materially worse" deal you speak of is simply less liquid cash, but more retained wealth.
- intended 2y ago
  Given American anti tax sentiment, it isn’t surprising. Plus there is a concerted effort to maintain the narrative that the government should be starved, because the government is the most wasteful body that can be. Being rich isn’t just some sort of statistical metric - it’s also a clear cut option to have your principles and desires accommodated. It’s not hard to believe. To determine whether its 60-40 (tax avoidance - convenience optimization) would seem to be the question to pursue.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    FWIW this person was Canadian.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    Being wealthy unlocks the option to not be a rational actor with little or no real world consequences, enabling capricious urges and whim to be a significant factor in the decision making process. See: Elon musk.
    - andriesm 2y ago
      Or take people who are super competent, with strong ethics and world class bravery, and catapult them into the truly heroic! Think for example, Elon Musk!
      - K0balt 2y ago
        I also think Elon has done great and important things for humanity, but to call him super- competent, ultra courageous, and heroic might be a pretty significant stretch. He seems to me to be an analytical thinker with 1st percentile intelligence, who struggles with emotional intelligence and impulse moderation. Probably a pretty fun guy to hang out with, but also an asshole more often than he should be. Nobody is even nearly perfect, and hero worship tends towards the delusional in most cases, so I tend to steer clear of thinking too good or poorly of anyone.
ulnarkressty 2y ago
Maybe it's like the same irrational aversion that people have to shipping fees. Amazon effect for the rich?
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
I can confirm that I’ve seen the same. I don’t think people have fully put together that the same personality type that was a slave owner prior to the 1900s is the same personality type of a venture founder, investor, venture, capitalist, banker, etc… That is to say their goal in getting rich is to have a dictatorship, not necessarily simply to have a nice boat and a house and raise a family The goal of the mega rich is the same as it always in history, which is to dominate enslave and basically shape the world to what they want it to look like without being intermediated by people with less power. Further the more wealth people have, in my personal experience, the less they want to have any constraints by other organizations, specifically governments they disagree with. If people haven’t, they should read about the “business plot”
- e40 2y ago
  > If people haven’t, they should read about the “business plot” This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
  - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
    Yes
sbochins 2y ago
I doubt that’s true. But, I’d be interested in an actual example, if you have one. Rich folks tend to avoid taxation at all costs, since that tends to be one of the best ways to retain their wealth.