6 ms·

Two points here: 1. Gary’s arguments for taxing the rich aren’t about taxing income. It’s about taxing wealth. 2. By his argument, most of the wealth are immo

Two points here: 1. Gary’s arguments for taxing the rich aren’t about taxing income. It’s about taxing wealth. 2. By his argument, most of the wealth are immovable: the rich disproportionately owns actual, physical real estates, and stocks of actual companies. As these assets are based in the country, you could tax right at the source.

tastyfreeze 2y ago
So the government takes physical assets? Didn't we fight a war over property rights? My neighbor is way wealthier than me. So its ok if I take his car. He has enough he can just buy another one.
- kiwih 2y ago
  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think a more reasonable interpretation might be "the government knows about expensive cars (i.e. that they are registered, have numberplates etc), and so charges some annual tax on the owners of those cars."
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    Describing wealth tax reasoning with an absurd example of the same reasoning on an individual level is an attempt to get people to understand what wealth taxes are. The government that is supposed to work for you thinks you have accumulated too much stuff and is trying to make it legal to take a percentage of your physical wealth annually.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government. Without the government and the economic system it cultivates, you’d never have it.
      - southernplaces7 2y ago
        >You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government This is simplistic nonsense. No, the majority of wealthy people didn't accumulate their wealth because high and mighty lord government willed it into their existence. They did it within a system of laws and regulations that government admittedly does create for fostering such wealth creation. However, this still often requires strenuous effort by these people for their own ends. If it were otherwise, many more people would be rich just by virtue of living under a government. There is a real place for giving people credit for the wealth and capital accumulate, well beyond what government offers. It's contradictory and absurd to argue that people accumulate wealth because of the government while at the same time arguing that we live in a situation in which we need more government control of people's earnings to prevent oligarchy since government doesn't do enough.
        Rumple22Stilk 2y ago
        Your argument is built on a flawed premise that ignores the foundational role government and society play in enabling wealth creation in the first place. The counterfactual is simple: without government, without the legal and social structures upheld by a functioning society, there would be no stable mechanism for accumulating wealth at all. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force. If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation. Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy. So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Property taxes are a thing. If Joe Dirt has to pay property taxes for the home he shelters in, the wealthy should have to pay property taxes for the shares of a company that they use to secure loans for yachts and Ferraris.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    A fix would be if you use unrealized capital to secure a loan, that unrealized capital amount to secure the loan becomes taxable. Of course that would tax people trying to get home equity loans though. The problem is that people will always probe the tax code for loopholes that weren't considered. It's a cat and mouse game, except the cat is fat and lazy, and gets paid by the mouse.
    - AutistiCoder 2y ago
      you could create an exception: if you have <= $1M in unrealized capital gains, those assets are not subject to unrealized gains tax.
      - saalweachter 2y ago
        Eh, an exception for a primary home is common throughout the tax codes and the like. Just saying you realize capital gains on an asset used to secure a loan (unless it's a primary residence) would cover that without being out of step with everything else. Sure, a billionaire could then use their $143M estate as collateral on a loan to avoid realizing the capital gains, loophole, but since you can only have one primary home, it's a very limited loophole.
        ok_dad 2y ago
        Larry Ellison will write off the island of Lanai as his primary charging station.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    The really great thing about taxing land, is that it can't escape where it is. Capital flight is a risk for taxing other forms of wealth. And land is something of finite quantity that is actually taken away from the rest of society. Capital is produced, and made, and is not finite like land. This is one thing that California got really wrong, it should be taxing land heavily, and income less.
- baby_souffle 2y ago
  > So the government takes physical assets? Not quite. If you are ultra wealthy because you happen to own several large buildings, fleeing the country to avoid taxes is easy. Doing so with you wealth, however, isn’t.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Which is why they will leave with mobile wealth before the act goes into effect, taking away the capital workers use to earn a living. Property taxes on land and fixed structures work well as they cant run away in a practical way.
    - blackjack_ 2y ago
      Not totally. The wealthy are incredibly heavily invested in our economy. Take Elon Musk for example. He’s heavily invested in SpaceX, Tesla, and Twitter. If he walks away from the US, Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX are all still here and can’t easily “run away”. Sure, they can take some “mobile wealth”, but if you are very wealthy you can’t just leave a whole economy (that’s where your wealth is).
      - auggierose 2y ago
        Elon realised that as well. That's why he is in the oval office now.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Elon came here under a similar story. The party in significant power cheers on 'kill the boer [farmer]' ( and 'redistribute' their capital to the poor). He escaped to here. It's admirable he wants to prevent America becoming like South Africa.
      - Ray20 2y ago
        The problem with that politics is stagnation. It is hard to move SpaceX and Tesla out of the country, but you don't get new companies in this situations, there will be less competition and, as a consequence, Elon Musk get more power, and there is nothing you could do about this.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Didn't we fight a war over property rights? We just wanted to be the ones setting the rules. We were quite quick to put our own stamp on the populace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
- mjmsmith 2y ago
  I can think of two wars over property rights.
mrjin 2y ago
Yep. Get your points. They can if they wish. The question is do they want to? If so, why were those loopholes there in the first place?
SJC_Hacker 2y ago
Yes, the only thing that genuinely scares the rich is wealth taxes. It is next to impossible to hide the fact that someone owns something like real estate In addition to real estate I might consider other property such as bank accounts, at least above a certain threshold. Presumably that cash has to be invested somewhere (or should be encouraged to do so) If we could get a real wealth tax, I would do away with income taxes like some states have done (i.e. Texas)
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  >It is next to impossible to hide the fact that someone owns something like real estate Real estate can already be taxed via property taxes. Unrealized gains in securities can't be taxed the same way as their value is much more volatile, with potentially large daily swings. Texas makes up for the lack of income taxes with relatively high property taxes. >In addition to real estate I might consider other property such as bank accounts, at least above a certain threshold. Interest from savings accounts is already taxed. The wealthy don't hoard their wealth in bank accounts though.
  - paddez 2y ago
    Unrealized gains can be taxed - for example, Ireland has a Deemed Disposal tax on ETF investments, where after 8 years, any gains are considered to have been realized and tax is due (even if no sale has taken place)
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      Deemed disposal subject ETFs can be taxed under an eight year exit tax scheme, but this can be avoided by simply investing in US domiciled ETFs or individual stocks.
  - danenania 2y ago
    While it doesn't make sense to tax unrealized gains, they could be taxed if they are used as the basis for a loan. Loans on unrealized gains are one of the main ways the wealthy are able to live lavishly while paying very low effective tax rates. It seems fair that you shouldn't be able to have it both ways—if you are getting any financial benefit from an asset, including a loan, there's a pretty strong argument that you yourself are "realizing" that value.
adrian_b 2y ago
For the really rich, I agree about the usefulness of taxing wealth. The problem is that such a tax must be strongly progressive, or it may affect the poor much more than the rich. For instance, I have seen cases in some countries, where after the discussions about the usefulness of such taxes for wealth, the result was the establishing of some high taxes on property, whose only effects were that e.g. someone who were jobless for some time might be forced to sell their house, and for a disadvantageous price, for not having with what to pay the property tax, thus becoming both jobless and homeless, or someone poor who inherited a house might be forced to sell it for a disadvantageous price, for not being able to pay the inheritance tax. The result of this kind of misguided tax was an even greater transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

tastyfreeze 2y ago

So the government takes physical assets? Didn't we fight a war over property rights? My neighbor is way wealthier than me. So its ok if I take his car. He has enough he can just buy another one.

kiwih 2y ago
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think a more reasonable interpretation might be "the government knows about expensive cars (i.e. that they are registered, have numberplates etc), and so charges some annual tax on the owners of those cars."
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  Describing wealth tax reasoning with an absurd example of the same reasoning on an individual level is an attempt to get people to understand what wealth taxes are. The government that is supposed to work for you thinks you have accumulated too much stuff and is trying to make it legal to take a percentage of your physical wealth annually.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government. Without the government and the economic system it cultivates, you’d never have it.
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      >You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government This is simplistic nonsense. No, the majority of wealthy people didn't accumulate their wealth because high and mighty lord government willed it into their existence. They did it within a system of laws and regulations that government admittedly does create for fostering such wealth creation. However, this still often requires strenuous effort by these people for their own ends. If it were otherwise, many more people would be rich just by virtue of living under a government. There is a real place for giving people credit for the wealth and capital accumulate, well beyond what government offers. It's contradictory and absurd to argue that people accumulate wealth because of the government while at the same time arguing that we live in a situation in which we need more government control of people's earnings to prevent oligarchy since government doesn't do enough.
      - Rumple22Stilk 2y ago
        Your argument is built on a flawed premise that ignores the foundational role government and society play in enabling wealth creation in the first place. The counterfactual is simple: without government, without the legal and social structures upheld by a functioning society, there would be no stable mechanism for accumulating wealth at all. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force. If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation. Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy. So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.
ok_dad 2y ago
Property taxes are a thing. If Joe Dirt has to pay property taxes for the home he shelters in, the wealthy should have to pay property taxes for the shares of a company that they use to secure loans for yachts and Ferraris.
- Clubber 2y ago
  A fix would be if you use unrealized capital to secure a loan, that unrealized capital amount to secure the loan becomes taxable. Of course that would tax people trying to get home equity loans though. The problem is that people will always probe the tax code for loopholes that weren't considered. It's a cat and mouse game, except the cat is fat and lazy, and gets paid by the mouse.
  - AutistiCoder 2y ago
    you could create an exception: if you have <= $1M in unrealized capital gains, those assets are not subject to unrealized gains tax.
    - saalweachter 2y ago
      Eh, an exception for a primary home is common throughout the tax codes and the like. Just saying you realize capital gains on an asset used to secure a loan (unless it's a primary residence) would cover that without being out of step with everything else. Sure, a billionaire could then use their $143M estate as collateral on a loan to avoid realizing the capital gains, loophole, but since you can only have one primary home, it's a very limited loophole.
      - ok_dad 2y ago
        Larry Ellison will write off the island of Lanai as his primary charging station.
- epistasis 2y ago
  The really great thing about taxing land, is that it can't escape where it is. Capital flight is a risk for taxing other forms of wealth. And land is something of finite quantity that is actually taken away from the rest of society. Capital is produced, and made, and is not finite like land. This is one thing that California got really wrong, it should be taxing land heavily, and income less.
baby_souffle 2y ago
> So the government takes physical assets? Not quite. If you are ultra wealthy because you happen to own several large buildings, fleeing the country to avoid taxes is easy. Doing so with you wealth, however, isn’t.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Which is why they will leave with mobile wealth before the act goes into effect, taking away the capital workers use to earn a living. Property taxes on land and fixed structures work well as they cant run away in a practical way.
  - blackjack_ 2y ago
    Not totally. The wealthy are incredibly heavily invested in our economy. Take Elon Musk for example. He’s heavily invested in SpaceX, Tesla, and Twitter. If he walks away from the US, Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX are all still here and can’t easily “run away”. Sure, they can take some “mobile wealth”, but if you are very wealthy you can’t just leave a whole economy (that’s where your wealth is).
    - auggierose 2y ago
      Elon realised that as well. That's why he is in the oval office now.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Elon came here under a similar story. The party in significant power cheers on 'kill the boer [farmer]' ( and 'redistribute' their capital to the poor). He escaped to here. It's admirable he wants to prevent America becoming like South Africa.
    - Ray20 2y ago
      The problem with that politics is stagnation. It is hard to move SpaceX and Tesla out of the country, but you don't get new companies in this situations, there will be less competition and, as a consequence, Elon Musk get more power, and there is nothing you could do about this.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> Didn't we fight a war over property rights? We just wanted to be the ones setting the rules. We were quite quick to put our own stamp on the populace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
mjmsmith 2y ago
I can think of two wars over property rights.

mrjin 2y ago

Yep. Get your points. They can if they wish. The question is do they want to? If so, why were those loopholes there in the first place?

SJC_Hacker 2y ago

Yes, the only thing that genuinely scares the rich is wealth taxes. It is next to impossible to hide the fact that someone owns something like real estate In addition to real estate I might consider other property such as bank accounts, at least above a certain threshold. Presumably that cash has to be invested somewhere (or should be encouraged to do so) If we could get a real wealth tax, I would do away with income taxes like some states have done (i.e. Texas)

TeaBrain 2y ago
>It is next to impossible to hide the fact that someone owns something like real estate Real estate can already be taxed via property taxes. Unrealized gains in securities can't be taxed the same way as their value is much more volatile, with potentially large daily swings. Texas makes up for the lack of income taxes with relatively high property taxes. >In addition to real estate I might consider other property such as bank accounts, at least above a certain threshold. Interest from savings accounts is already taxed. The wealthy don't hoard their wealth in bank accounts though.
- paddez 2y ago
  Unrealized gains can be taxed - for example, Ireland has a Deemed Disposal tax on ETF investments, where after 8 years, any gains are considered to have been realized and tax is due (even if no sale has taken place)
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    Deemed disposal subject ETFs can be taxed under an eight year exit tax scheme, but this can be avoided by simply investing in US domiciled ETFs or individual stocks.
- danenania 2y ago
  While it doesn't make sense to tax unrealized gains, they could be taxed if they are used as the basis for a loan. Loans on unrealized gains are one of the main ways the wealthy are able to live lavishly while paying very low effective tax rates. It seems fair that you shouldn't be able to have it both ways—if you are getting any financial benefit from an asset, including a loan, there's a pretty strong argument that you yourself are "realizing" that value.

adrian_b 2y ago

For the really rich, I agree about the usefulness of taxing wealth. The problem is that such a tax must be strongly progressive, or it may affect the poor much more than the rich. For instance, I have seen cases in some countries, where after the discussions about the usefulness of such taxes for wealth, the result was the establishing of some high taxes on property, whose only effects were that e.g. someone who were jobless for some time might be forced to sell their house, and for a disadvantageous price, for not having with what to pay the property tax, thus becoming both jobless and homeless, or someone poor who inherited a house might be forced to sell it for a disadvantageous price, for not being able to pay the inheritance tax. The result of this kind of misguided tax was an even greater transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.