Hacker News Reader

Comment by 11thEarlOfMar | Hacker News Reader

This is only tangentially on topic, but I genuinely wonder about this. When people state that they want the wealthy to pay their fair share, the first two questions I have are, what constitutes wealthy and what constitutes fair?

Let's take a specific person as an example of wealthy (let me know if you don't agree), and I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts:

Wealthy Person X:

- CEO, 55 years old, University of Illinois grad in bio-chemistry, put self through college working

- Works 60 hour weeks, most Saturdays, some Sundays

- $1,500,000 salary + stock benefits

- Net worth $8,000,000

What is X's fair share in Federal Income Tax?

View on HN

This doesn’t seem like a question inviting genuine discussion. Tax laws don’t take into account how hard someone works, where they went to school, or a taxpayers character.

Unless your argument is that taxes should be based on factors outside of income/etc, it seems like you might be trying to bait people with some version of “Look how hard Steve works - you can’t possibly support raising taxes on him.”

I think it's a valid question though.

In my mind, the closest thing to a fair tax law is one that applies evenly to everyone, like UBI. Consider a flat 10% income tax applied evenly regardless of socio-economic status. If you made 1M, then you pay $100K. If you made $10K, you pay $1K. If you made $0 or less, you pay 0. That's it.

In some senses that is very fair - everyone pays 10% of their income, no exceptions. It's this ultra-convoluted labyrinthine system of laws/exceptions that has allowed the wealthy people and companies to find so many loopholes. In my mind, just like simple software code is harder to exploit than spaghetti code, so simple laws are harder to exploit than spaghetti laws.

It only seems fair if you don't understand the marginal utility of dollars (some dollars are in fact far more valuable than others) and marginal propensity to spend.

Flat taxes are often criticized for failing to be progressive and that argument has some merit. As an example, 1 dollar in tax means more to someone making 10k than it does to someone making 100k.

That's true, one drawback is that it isn't progressive, but I would argue that the massive simplification of the tax law would allow the government to bring in much more money than it currently does, which it can then divert to social services for those who most need it.

As an example of a working implementation of this system, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints effectively taxes all their members at a flat 10% of their annual income, and I thought I read somewhere the church is both debt-free and has a crazy amount of money in the bank ($100B+). Even though the poorest members still pay 10% and it impacts them more than Mitt Romney-type members, the poor members can then go and receive assistance from the church (rent money, food, etc.) if they need it.

Of course, with a church people voluntarily give their money whereas with the government people do everything they can to keep their money, so perhaps it wouldn't be as effective as I think it would be. However, what is very clear to me is that the current tax law needs to be much, much simpler.

Are you familiar with the "Rules for Rulers" video by CGP Grey on YouTube? [1]

In this video, it is argued that complicated tax law is the method by which democracies reward their particular "keys to the kingdom" - so the complexity is a feature, not a bug, and will be very difficult to undo; so "would all the government to bring in much more money than it currently does" may not be the goal.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I think that’s exactly what the parent commenter is saying, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss per se. Consider 3 people:

- Morgan. Worked 80 hour weeks for 40 years developing treatments for childhood cancer. Runs a charity supporting orphanages in their free time. Net worth: 8 million, income: 1 million

- Sam. Started the largest pornography empire in the world and works as the CEO. Accused of child sex trafficking on multiple occasions, but no proof. Net worth: 8 million, income: 1 million

- Jordan. Their great grandparents started a mining company and they inherited a trust fund. Never worked in their life. Net worth: 8 million, income: 1 million

I’m willing to bet people would have value judgements on how much each person should pay in taxes. People do tie moral, emotional, or ethical considerations to what they consider fair. I personally believe these three people should be taxed almost the same, as the value judgements should have an impact elsewhere. I think estate/wealth taxes would be the only case where there should be a divergence, as they would only apply to the third person. What do you think?

We are a nation of laws, not men. Everyone should be treated the same under the law. Every person in your example should pay the same amount of tax.

I mostly agree on that. How do you feel about current estate taxes, which, in effect, mean the third person has paid more tax than the first two?

Estate taxes are on the estate, not a person. Also, there is a built in assumption that taxes have been paid. This is almost always not true, see step-up cost basis.

Estate taxes serve a purpose, though I would argue that a lack of will has caused them to not serve that intended purpose. That doesn't mean that estate taxes aren't the right tool, just that it has been sabotaged. That also doesn't mean that they are the correct or best tool, but until we can see what the full force of estate taxes are, it is impossible to say.

The type of tax that you just described is called an inheritance tax, and I am perfectly ok with them as well. Income is income, it doesn't matter whether it comes from your employer, a rental company, self-employment, or otherwise.

Something I would be against is both an Estate and Inheritance tax being levied by the same entity. That doesn't serve any real purpose.

I'd actually prefer an inheritance tax combined with a more progressive tax system over an estate tax.

>put self through college working

>Works 60 hour weeks, most Saturdays, some Sundays ...

I don't give a damn about the 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work hard' virtue signaling.

Half. He should pay half. So should everyone else above 400k / yr. The rich are able to succeed by virtue of the fact that we have schools, roads, other infrastructure. If you're in the top 1% of income, you should pay in the top 1% of taxes to help pay for all that.

Mad about that? Maybe we should stop spending ~ 700B / yr on defense. We're surrounded by two friendly nations and large oceans. There's zero chance of conventional total war against Russia or China, and we can't defend against a nuclear exchange. Our military is a giant welfare program.

And while we are at this, I am very interested in another thought experiment. * Person 1: income $400k per year, lives in California -- must spend $1.5M+ to afford a 4 BR home for a family of 4 -- must spend $15 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws -- spends an average of $20 per person per meal, because of all the costs baked into the price of goods and services in the state -- spends 10 - 12% on state income tax but does not receive any direct benefits from state programs because of their income level (the only point being about the additional expense of it that is not a direct benefit, not that the state tax is unfair). -- spends 9% of all goods purchased on sales tax

* Person 2: income $400k per year lives in TX * spends $700 - 800k on an equivalent or better home * spends an average of $12 - 15 per meal per person * can spend $10 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws * spends 0% on state income tax * spends a 6 - 7% on all goods purchased on sales tax

Ignoring things like what the specific min wage levels should be, etc, etc, is cost of living something that should show up in "fair tax" owed?

If the answer is no... I have a hard time seeing how any specific tax level could be considered fair (even after the argument of "well people should just move to another state").

If the answer is yes, then I have a hard time imagining how any federal income tax system could achieve the goal of "fairness".

And perhaps getting rid of the income tax altogether (perhpas replaced by Universal or partial BI + national sales tax as one idea) would result in a much faire / progressive system.

400k+ is a high enough threshold that I'm confident it would not be too much of an imposition anywhere. A person living in SF or NYC chooses to live there. (Were I emperor, taxes would be much simpler and have much fewer exceptions)

Why is $400K the morally correct number?

Rough ballpark for the 1% income in the US.

To answer that, let’s look at what his rate would have been during America’s greatest expansion of prosperity, when possibly more people of humble means were pulling themselves up from their bootstraps than at any other point in history. Let’s go with say 1960 and adjust for inflation.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...

1,500,000 in 1960 dollars is about 180,000. Which means his maximum tax rate would have been 87%

My guess is that number will shock and outrage people. Even I think that’s too high. But the point is history already shows us that all those arguments that that rate wouldn’t result i. The destruction of incentives for Americans to work harder, or lower overall quality of life. For example that tax revenue could pay for funding college so that people don’t have to take on crushing debt just to go.

Except that is a misconception because no one paid anywhere close to that 87% rate back in the day. The rich will always find loopholes and deductions to lower their tax rates.

In UK/US (probably many other countries) issue is that those that many who are even wealthier for similar kind of income pay less taxes than nurses on $30,000 a year, because they know how to hide income in number of tax loopholes made just for them. On top of that government gives them not just tax reliefs, but additional cash so they can invest and on top of that banks give them much better terms for credit...

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-s-compa...

[2] https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/trump-returns-show-h...

Ignoring edge cases like selling a house, I would argue ‘fair share’ is for capital gains tax to have brackets that eventually equal regular income tax brackets, such that a CEO that makes $1 / year and 4 million in stocks, if he sells all 4 million in stocks 2 years later, isn’t paying only 15% income tax.

Your base point is valid, your example is at best incomplete. Stock compensation is taxed as regular income. The appreciation of the stock afterwards would be taxes as cap gains.

Yes, you're right. I admit I had completely forgotten about that.

More than what they are paying today. I'll also remind you that the tax burden on every marginal dollar is the same for everyone. That is, that CEO pays the same amount of tax on their first taxable dollar as I do irrespective of what our total income is.

With that said, there is no reason that the top marginal tax rate shouldn't be 90%, and that should apply to incomes in 10's of millions. And the marginal tax rate should progress up from the current 37%@$622+k income to 90% at say $25MM. The CEO in your example's marginal tax rate should be coming in probably in the 45-50% range. That's marginal, not effective.

Capital gains tax should be eliminated and cap gains should be counted as income.

> there is no reason that the top marginal tax rate shouldn't be 90%

But why should the government get to essentially steal 90% of wealth generated by a person above an arbitrary threshold? Because "there's no reason someone needs that much money"?

I would argue that if you do this, you'll get less things like SpaceX and Tesla, which required a person with much more than 25MM to decide to create them.

1. Taxes are not theft.

2. No man/woman is an island. They did not create their success on their own.

3. Marginal utility of dollars. Taking 90 cents from that person and giving it to someone that is not as well off is better for the economy and our society.

4. Marginal propensity to spend. Again, that $.90 is far more valuable being spent today than in capital investment. Capital is no longer a scarce resource.

5. These levels of tax rates don't in any way make that person worst off because everyone making that amount of money are subject to the same tax levels.

Not legally theft, but conceptually the same thing. If I pass a law that says you and only you get taxed at a 100% rate, technically it's not theft because it's legal (I just passed it as a law), but conceptually it is theft because I take every dollar you earn against your will.

Also aren't you essentially saying: "People that have hundreds of millions or billions can keep their wealth, but starting now we don't really want anyone in the rising generations to have a net worth much more than ~$25MM"?

Your first is an appeal is an appeal to the extreme fallacy. A law like that would never pass in a functioning democracy, and if our democracy isn't functioning, then I would say we have bigger problems than a single person be taxed of all their earnings.

Your second point would matter if making income is that was how people became billionaires. That simply isn't the case. The vast, vast, majority of people with a 9-digit or more net wealth did not get there by income.

I also advocate for other taxes and methods of taxation that would handle high net-worth individuals/families.

I'm not looking for a perfect system, nor am I looking for a system that appeases everyone's idea of fairness, I'm advocating the system that I think is best for America moving through the 21st century and the threats it will face this century.

There's no objective, fair way to answer that question. This is something that can only be answered by a societal discussion and hopefully some democratic way of decision.

I'm not sure this is what you're trying to do, but it sounds a bit you want to imply that because there's no objective measurements of "fairness" we shouldn't even try.

FWIW I think your question doesn't give me enough information to form an opionion, because the tax should depend on needs of the authority that does the taxing (e.g. if there's an obvious lack of healthcare in a country that causes many people to die needlessly - that'd be a good reason for higher taxes).

The answer is always the same: a gradual tax on his income. So the first, say, 40k he pays is taxed at, say 10%. The next 60k at 15%. And so on. Don't concentrate on the numbers, concentrate on the concept: As brackets go up, the higher the taxed percentage. It never comes to 100% but it should be quite high after the first million.

Why I think this is fair?

Because it is no longer possible for people to "put themselves over" University by "college working". The group that Wealthy Person X belongs to has managed to extract a lot of wealth from the society, making it worse for everyone else. It's time to give back.

I'm curious about the notion of becoming wealthy by extracting wealth. Here are four ways to increase one's wealth, which of the four is an extraction:

1. Earning a salary. Generally speaking, the larger the organization and the higher the position the higher the salary.

2. Investing in stock. The more a company grows, the more valuable the stock becomes, the more the investor's stock is worth.

3. Owning a home. The more people there are, and the more desirable a location is, the more valuable the property is, and the more the home is worth.

4. Owning a business. The harder and smarter your work, the more the business is worth. As the owner, that grows your wealth.

How do these methods of increasing wealth make it worse for other people? Or are you referring to another way? For example, a drug pusher who gets people hooked and then sells them drugs is for sure extracting. Or a monopolist who can charge any price he wishes is extracting if he chooses to exploit that position.

However, the majority of wealthy people are not of that type.

If a group gets wealthier while everyone else gets poorer, then the first group has extracted that wealth from the second group.

The thing about taxes is that they act on groups and equalize things. They are what makes (or, should make) this ficticious person of your pay for the construction of a road that he will never step on, or for a school that his children will never use.

The wealthier they are, the more they have extracted. Thus the more they should be taxed. It is really not that difficult.

Except if you provide a useful service people want to exchange money for then you made society better off even if you don't pay any taxes ever. This is obvious yet so often missed by the "rich people evil" rhetoric.

If you think people are enriching themselves unjustly focus on fixing those mechanism instead of punishing those who make the world a better place for everyone around them.

> if you provide a useful service people want to exchange money for then you made society better off even if you don't pay any taxes ever

Society will be even better if you do that and pay taxes.

> If you think people are enriching themselves unjustly focus on fixing those mechanism instead of punishing those who make the world a better place for everyone around them.

The purpose of taxes is not punishment. Consider that maybe it is you who is fixated into the wrong thing.

Yes, I was specifically arguing against the point "you extracted money from the society and therefore made it worse off".

This argument is often raised and it's based on the idea that if you make a lot of money you're somehow exploiting others.

That's more than thirty times the average US salary so at least thirty times the average amount of taxes paid by a person - a bit more would still be fair as utility of money decreases quickly past a certain point - and different taxes on the stock benefits and capital gains.

The amount of hours someone works is completely irrelevant. Paying taxes is not about whether you deserve the money nor is it a punishment. It's entierely about how much you can contribute.

If he makes $1.5m/ year and his net worth is only $8m, he's not very good with money.

My feeling on taxes is likely overly simple. Take the median price of a home in the area and divide it by 4. If people make less than that, they shouldn't pay any taxes. Then people should pay flat rate for every dollar above that.

That's interesting.

The median home price in the US (it varies dramatically by region, I need to simplify first) is $295,000. Divided by 4 is about $74,000.

The median household income (using household since you're using house prices) is $69,000.

The actual numbers would need to change for this to work, maybe it needs to be 1/10th the median home price as the threshold, for example.

But it's interesting to think through the impact this type of approach would have on home prices. I'm confident the tax rates and taxable thresholds could be worked out to generate the revenue needed, but to what extent would people be incentivized to move to areas with lower home prices?

Taking an extreme example, the median home price in Santa Clara County is $1,395,000. If we use the 10% threshold, families would not pay taxes if their household income were below $139,500. The median household income is $124,000.

Income and housing prices are not linearly corelated, so it would need some type of non-linear scaling. But at the heart of it, housing is generally the greatest family expense and perhaps it makes sense to use that in the approach to taxing income. Come to think of it, perhaps that's in effect what the mortgage interest deduction does.

I was going off the top of my head. What I was intending was for people to not get taxed until they can afford to buy a home in their locale. A mortgage payment should be 1/4 of your income which is where I came up with 1/4, but I commingled ideas here and said the home price.

It was a seat of the pants attempt to make taxation based on actual living costs. (and in retrospect not great for a variety of reasons). The big point is people who can't afford basic living expenses shouldn't be taxed.

Do you think UBI would accomplish that, at least partially? It would ensure survival-level income, even for unemployed persons.

I favor a wealth tax over an income tax, as the wealthiest individuals tend to make only a tiny fraction of their money through income.

Start at 50% tax on wealth exceeding one million dollars, and raise it by 1% for every million above that, adjusted for inflation.

>When people state that they want the wealthy to pay their fair share,

What they mean is that they are jealous of the rich. They are want the rich to the equally poor through some cosmic egalitarian enforcer.

Anyway personal opinion - all forms of income tax is plain theft.

>Anyway personal opinion - all forms of income tax is plain theft.

By that rational, your using the infrastructure paid by those taxes is also theft right?

Gosh, how did I overlook that, good catch!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com