Hacker News Reader

Comment by hollerith | Hacker News Reader

Does he explain how to do it so that it works better than the last time (1960s and 70s in the US and Western Europe) it was tried?

View on HN

A common objection is that the rich will 'just move' to avoid taxes. However, he goes in depth in his response, pointing out that the source of the wealth can't move, you tax that at the source.

https://youtu.be/t9l7AYl0jUE?si=LUU_8mUpxw0upPk4

That only works if taxes aren't so high as to kill the incentive to create the source.

Here's perhaps a better link: Robert Reich refutes the top 12 myths about taxing the rich:

https://youtu.be/pnoLAMHwf2I?si=SApa_u3PGUZ-Y150

What a fitting surname.

There's an easy way to address this:

If a corporation "moves" oversees to avoid taxes, they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the country whose taxes they wished to avoid.

If a billionaire moves to avoid taxes, they and their assets are cut off from the system whose taxes they wished to avoid. Oh, you want to move overseas but keep your money in banking institutions propped up by the US government? Too bad. You want your corporations to keep the full protection of the US government (intellectual capital protection, copyright, etc...)? Too bad! You want your company to take full advantage of all the US has to offer (great education system, a large consumer base, secure capital markets, a relatively stable government)? Too bad!

Most of these folks are just greedy fucks who know how good they have it...but somehow they want more, yet expect that people with exponentially less wealth will pay for it. I don't like that.

Note - the government isn't always the best at allocating capital or resources...but neither are private citizens or corporations.

The poor keep voting against their own interests and installing Republican/Tory governments that work to actively increase inequality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwqQvrqunp8

I'm a little confused on this. What is the evidence that it didn't work in the 60s/70s? My understanding is that, though we definitely had "stagflation" and other problems, none of them were caused by higher taxes at the top end.

Now, granted, I don't know that I have ever seen it put forth that they were ideal levels or anything. I just have never heard the top end tax rate blamed for that. Biggest thing I have seen it blamed on would be employer tied insurance and the like.

In some countries, certainly the UK in the 1960s with its 90% top tax rate, the government would've collected more tax if the rate were lower because there would have been more economic activity to tax -- or so say a lot of economists. "Laffer curve" is a good thing to search for if you want to learn more.

I mean, this is largely to my point, though? Last I looked, it seemed research into the Laffer Curve largely found most countries set their rates below the ideal. Agreed that a 90% rate would almost certainly be too high, but the general feel was 40-60 would certainly cover the maximum rates. Some folks saying as high as 70, no?

He seems quite pessimistic on outlook frankly

Yes.

His most important point though is that things will not get better until a sufficient mass of public political pressure is brought to bear on the issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com