3 ms·

At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates. Edit: For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the highest top inco

At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates. Edit: For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the highest top income tax rates in the OECD, one of the highest (or the highest?) corp tax rates in OECD, and arguably the lowest tax burden on poor/middle class in OECD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

nkoren 13y ago
That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-income.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi... [edit] Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax... [/edit]
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  First chart cuts off in '09, before Obamas tax hikes. Also probably doesn't include state/local income tax burden (!!). US has one of harshest tax regimes for top earners, and amongst most progressive regimes in OECD (arguably THE most progressive). Second chart is straight nonsense: counts unrepatriated money - capital stuck abroad whilst awaiting change in broken US corp tax policy - as taxed at zero percent! Both are cute gimmicks and nothing more.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    Please, before you start calling things 'cute gimmicks', provide a citation, especially for this claim: "US has one of the harshest tax regimes for top earners". Because per multiple sources, including this one: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-tax... - it's demonstrably wrong, and not even close: "France has the highest tax rate with a 75% rate on millionaires. In the U.S., the fight is over whether to extend the top rate to little more than half that amount." "In Washington, of course, the fight is over whether to raise the top rate to a level just over half the amount they are arguing about in France -- to 39.6% from 35%. By contrast, numerous countries have top rates in the low to mid-50s, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Japan and Sweden. The world's highest rate is levied in sunny Aruba, where people making more than $171,000 face a top rate of 58.95%, according to figures compiled by KPMG." As does this link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-... - which also casts significant aspersions on your claim: "For comparison: The United States 2012 top rate of income taxes: 35% (rising to 39.6% in 2013) Effective tax rate on $100,000: 26% (7.3% Social Security, 18.7% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $100,000: 55 Effective tax rate on $300,000: 30.5% (3.7% Social Security, 26.8% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $300,000: 53"
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Top US tax rate is over 55%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates Going over 58% in 2014, thanks to Obamacare levy. Like I said, one of the highest in OECD. And arguably most progressive in all of OECD: US lacks severe excise taxes and VATs which target the poor and middle class, coupled with generously progressive income tax brackets. And of course those infamously high US corporate tax rates: often double the rates of other OECD nations (same link).
      - FireBeyond 13y ago
        Hmm, interesting link. Confusing though, because the citations for: "55.9% (max of federal+state+local) 10%-39.6% (federal)[136] + 0%-13.3% (state)[137] + 0%-3% (local)" lead to a link at the Tax Foundation that lists /only/ "Selected Federal Rates": "136. "State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2013". Tax Foundation. Retrieved 2013-05-17. 137. "State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2013". Tax Foundation. Retrieved 2013-05-17." Despite the titles thereof. I find it odd, too, that all the US references are to the Tax Foundation, which has had numerous criticisms leveled at it as a conservative think tank, not least of which: "US economist Paul Krugman has characterised the Tax Foundation as "not a reliable source" while criticizing a report by the Tax Foundation comparing corporate tax rates in the United States to those in other countries.[46] Krugman has also accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.[47]" There's all this not insubstantial disclaimer to your table: "Some other taxes (for instance property tax, substantial in many countries, such as the USA) are not shown here. The table is not intended to represent the true tax burden to either the corporation or the individual in the listed country." Not that there's not pause for thought. But it's intriguing that multiple independent sources list our highest task rates around the 30th to 55th in the world, but yet the Tax Foundation lists at nearly the top.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        @FireBeyond Straight from the horses mouth: California income tax rate: 12.3% California C Corp tax rate: 8.84-10.84% https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2013_california_tax_rates_and_exemptions.shtml https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2013_california_tax_rates_and_e... Federal income tax rate: 39.6% (43% 2014) [no citation needed, I trust] Side note to you: Read around, beyond the NYT/CNN/FOX/etc propagandists. You'll find, I trust, that the US does in fact have more progressive taxation overall than most if not all OECD members. I've spoken with a few researchers and they've unanimously backed up this "finding". Tough to compare such data across nations and jurisdictions, but it's possible to get a general idea. Want to really blow your mind? Look into enforcement - appears the US is far stricter on US rich earners foreign income than rest of OECD as well! Universal taxation of citizens is quite... remarkable. To say nothing of my own reading of the OECD's GINI adjustment nonsense. But I don't want to make you too dubious too early. I'll leave that one for later.
avn2109 13y ago
This is something I often wonder about on HN: Is this guy being downvoted simply because we disagree with him/he's making absurd claims? His comments are correctly punctuated, grammatical, at least tolerably respectful, etc. Though his map does not seem to correspond to the territory, in my eyes that alone doesn't merit downvotes.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  My claims are obviously factually correct (citation provided, even). Sole reason for downvotes is because I'm going against anti-fatcat anti-inequality hysteria of the day.
  - avn2109 13y ago
    I guess my claim here is that the content of your comment ought to be in general decoupled from the number of downvotes you receive.
mpweiher 13y ago
The rich gave themselves low capital gains taxes and shifted their income to be capital gains, so the income tax rate is less and less relevant. Just as an example, Mit Romney's publicized tax rate was around 14.1% in 2011 on income that very comfortably puts him in the top income tax bracket. He just doesn't pay income tax on it.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Another misconception. Well two in one post, actually. 1) Capital gains income is often first passed through a corporation, thus getting taxed at the insanely high US corp tax rate before getting taxed a second time at the moderately normal US cap gains rate. So US citizens are still paying more on average, even if it all doesn't show up as such on a tax return. 2) And Mitt's specifically! Let's count the misconceptions (note that I don't blame you - the media never described them and let the infamous "14.1%" figure stand because it's a good story): a) Doesn't include state tax rate. That right there could easily tack on another 9%. Though it could also be zero if in Texas. Mitt of course lived in Mass, so it's just 4% or so. b) No one deducted charitable contributions. As a Mormon, that was 10% of his income. So add another 1.4% to his tax rate there. c) People counted his off-shore income, which is counted as income but not taxed until repatriated, as taxed at 0%. In fact it would be taxed at normal capital gains, which today is ~20% Federal + 4% Mass. Depending on the blend of foreign to domestic income, this could amount to a lot or just a little. Let's say his offshore income constituted 10% of overall income, for a ~1-2% higher average tax rate overall? d) Most impactfully, no one's counting the Corp Tax rate which was paid before he took the Cap Gains. That's 39% Federal and another 8% Mass (~46% total), assuming that it's coming from Mass based corps. I'd say a solid chunk of his income is coming from this sort of income, probably in the ballpark of 70%, but let's just say it's 30% (of his income subject to this sort of double tax) to be super conservative. Starting with base 14.1% + 4%(a) + 1.4%(b) + 1-2%(c) + (.3)(46%) = 21.5% just with very simple adjustments, and as high as 31.4% with a corp tax rate blended in a bit.
  - mpweiher 13y ago
    Once again, you are confusing nominal rates with effective rates, and simply assuming that corp. tax was paid at that nominal rate, which has a statistical likelihood so low as to be indistinguishable from zero. Effectively, a quarter of corporations pay zero corporation tax. Considering that the whole purpose of these constructs is to reduce the tax burden, I'd wager a guess that the rates paid tend towards the low end of the scale. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-companies-pay-no-taxes/2480281/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-...) Of course tax should be paid on income that was shifted off-shore for tax reasons, but of course the monied interests are lobbying for a "tax holiday", which they have "successfully" done in the past. "Success" in quotes because the policy failed to achieve the things that were used to peddle the ludicrous idea: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203633104576623771022129888 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020363310... It was highly successful in avoiding taxes, which is why they are lobbying for it again. What do voluntary charitable contributions have to do with taxes (apart from him not deducting some of them in order to not have his tax rate look even more ridiculously low than it already is)?

nkoren 13y ago

That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-income.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi... [edit] Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax... [/edit]

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
First chart cuts off in '09, before Obamas tax hikes. Also probably doesn't include state/local income tax burden (!!). US has one of harshest tax regimes for top earners, and amongst most progressive regimes in OECD (arguably THE most progressive). Second chart is straight nonsense: counts unrepatriated money - capital stuck abroad whilst awaiting change in broken US corp tax policy - as taxed at zero percent! Both are cute gimmicks and nothing more.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  Please, before you start calling things 'cute gimmicks', provide a citation, especially for this claim: "US has one of the harshest tax regimes for top earners". Because per multiple sources, including this one: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-tax... - it's demonstrably wrong, and not even close: "France has the highest tax rate with a 75% rate on millionaires. In the U.S., the fight is over whether to extend the top rate to little more than half that amount." "In Washington, of course, the fight is over whether to raise the top rate to a level just over half the amount they are arguing about in France -- to 39.6% from 35%. By contrast, numerous countries have top rates in the low to mid-50s, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Japan and Sweden. The world's highest rate is levied in sunny Aruba, where people making more than $171,000 face a top rate of 58.95%, according to figures compiled by KPMG." As does this link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-... - which also casts significant aspersions on your claim: "For comparison: The United States 2012 top rate of income taxes: 35% (rising to 39.6% in 2013) Effective tax rate on $100,000: 26% (7.3% Social Security, 18.7% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $100,000: 55 Effective tax rate on $300,000: 30.5% (3.7% Social Security, 26.8% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $300,000: 53"
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Top US tax rate is over 55%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates Going over 58% in 2014, thanks to Obamacare levy. Like I said, one of the highest in OECD. And arguably most progressive in all of OECD: US lacks severe excise taxes and VATs which target the poor and middle class, coupled with generously progressive income tax brackets. And of course those infamously high US corporate tax rates: often double the rates of other OECD nations (same link).
    - FireBeyond 13y ago
      Hmm, interesting link. Confusing though, because the citations for: "55.9% (max of federal+state+local) 10%-39.6% (federal)[136] + 0%-13.3% (state)[137] + 0%-3% (local)" lead to a link at the Tax Foundation that lists /only/ "Selected Federal Rates": "136. "State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2013". Tax Foundation. Retrieved 2013-05-17. 137. "State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2013". Tax Foundation. Retrieved 2013-05-17." Despite the titles thereof. I find it odd, too, that all the US references are to the Tax Foundation, which has had numerous criticisms leveled at it as a conservative think tank, not least of which: "US economist Paul Krugman has characterised the Tax Foundation as "not a reliable source" while criticizing a report by the Tax Foundation comparing corporate tax rates in the United States to those in other countries.[46] Krugman has also accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.[47]" There's all this not insubstantial disclaimer to your table: "Some other taxes (for instance property tax, substantial in many countries, such as the USA) are not shown here. The table is not intended to represent the true tax burden to either the corporation or the individual in the listed country." Not that there's not pause for thought. But it's intriguing that multiple independent sources list our highest task rates around the 30th to 55th in the world, but yet the Tax Foundation lists at nearly the top.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        @FireBeyond Straight from the horses mouth: California income tax rate: 12.3% California C Corp tax rate: 8.84-10.84% https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2013_california_tax_rates_and_exemptions.shtml https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2013_california_tax_rates_and_e... Federal income tax rate: 39.6% (43% 2014) [no citation needed, I trust] Side note to you: Read around, beyond the NYT/CNN/FOX/etc propagandists. You'll find, I trust, that the US does in fact have more progressive taxation overall than most if not all OECD members. I've spoken with a few researchers and they've unanimously backed up this "finding". Tough to compare such data across nations and jurisdictions, but it's possible to get a general idea. Want to really blow your mind? Look into enforcement - appears the US is far stricter on US rich earners foreign income than rest of OECD as well! Universal taxation of citizens is quite... remarkable. To say nothing of my own reading of the OECD's GINI adjustment nonsense. But I don't want to make you too dubious too early. I'll leave that one for later.

avn2109 13y ago

This is something I often wonder about on HN: Is this guy being downvoted simply because we disagree with him/he's making absurd claims? His comments are correctly punctuated, grammatical, at least tolerably respectful, etc. Though his map does not seem to correspond to the territory, in my eyes that alone doesn't merit downvotes.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
My claims are obviously factually correct (citation provided, even). Sole reason for downvotes is because I'm going against anti-fatcat anti-inequality hysteria of the day.
- avn2109 13y ago
  I guess my claim here is that the content of your comment ought to be in general decoupled from the number of downvotes you receive.

mpweiher 13y ago

The rich gave themselves low capital gains taxes and shifted their income to be capital gains, so the income tax rate is less and less relevant. Just as an example, Mit Romney's publicized tax rate was around 14.1% in 2011 on income that very comfortably puts him in the top income tax bracket. He just doesn't pay income tax on it.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Another misconception. Well two in one post, actually. 1) Capital gains income is often first passed through a corporation, thus getting taxed at the insanely high US corp tax rate before getting taxed a second time at the moderately normal US cap gains rate. So US citizens are still paying more on average, even if it all doesn't show up as such on a tax return. 2) And Mitt's specifically! Let's count the misconceptions (note that I don't blame you - the media never described them and let the infamous "14.1%" figure stand because it's a good story): a) Doesn't include state tax rate. That right there could easily tack on another 9%. Though it could also be zero if in Texas. Mitt of course lived in Mass, so it's just 4% or so. b) No one deducted charitable contributions. As a Mormon, that was 10% of his income. So add another 1.4% to his tax rate there. c) People counted his off-shore income, which is counted as income but not taxed until repatriated, as taxed at 0%. In fact it would be taxed at normal capital gains, which today is ~20% Federal + 4% Mass. Depending on the blend of foreign to domestic income, this could amount to a lot or just a little. Let's say his offshore income constituted 10% of overall income, for a ~1-2% higher average tax rate overall? d) Most impactfully, no one's counting the Corp Tax rate which was paid before he took the Cap Gains. That's 39% Federal and another 8% Mass (~46% total), assuming that it's coming from Mass based corps. I'd say a solid chunk of his income is coming from this sort of income, probably in the ballpark of 70%, but let's just say it's 30% (of his income subject to this sort of double tax) to be super conservative. Starting with base 14.1% + 4%(a) + 1.4%(b) + 1-2%(c) + (.3)(46%) = 21.5% just with very simple adjustments, and as high as 31.4% with a corp tax rate blended in a bit.
- mpweiher 13y ago
  Once again, you are confusing nominal rates with effective rates, and simply assuming that corp. tax was paid at that nominal rate, which has a statistical likelihood so low as to be indistinguishable from zero. Effectively, a quarter of corporations pay zero corporation tax. Considering that the whole purpose of these constructs is to reduce the tax burden, I'd wager a guess that the rates paid tend towards the low end of the scale. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-companies-pay-no-taxes/2480281/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-...) Of course tax should be paid on income that was shifted off-shore for tax reasons, but of course the monied interests are lobbying for a "tax holiday", which they have "successfully" done in the past. "Success" in quotes because the policy failed to achieve the things that were used to peddle the ludicrous idea: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203633104576623771022129888 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020363310... It was highly successful in avoiding taxes, which is why they are lobbying for it again. What do voluntary charitable contributions have to do with taxes (apart from him not deducting some of them in order to not have his tax rate look even more ridiculously low than it already is)?