undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjohnnyanmac1mo ago0 comments

>And I did engage with the real point

You did not and still are not. This isnt about making billionaires cover the entire country's budget. Its about making sure power doesn't consolidate in any one person.

Do I really need to repost the other 80% of my comment (the entire 2.point?) Which part of "high corporate taxes mean business owners invest in business" needs clarification? Are we suggesting that the tax codes in which the baby boomers boomed under did not in fact make America Great?

0 comments

kadabra91mo ago

You’re discussing raising corporate or individual income tax rates.

I’m discussing a proposed broad wealth tax on unrealized gains and assets.

The tax rates of the 50s were high, but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

There are arguments to be made how much those policies contributed to the boom of that decade, but those are separate to arguments about the practical, legal, or efficiency concerns with just imposing a 5% levy across all assets and net worth

johnnyanmacOP1mo ago

>but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

Yes, thanks for reiterating my main point.

Now if we use that same mindset and apply it to a wealth tax...

Hence my main point. Taxes aren't all about extraction of money, they also help to nudge people to do things they normally wouldn't do. So nudging them to actually help the area they are in is really powerful.

Or they can leave. If so: good. Make room for those who do want to innovate and not extract money from the people (and more beach space).

Not all billionaires are "job creators", especially given the actions taken the last few years. That's why some of the legitimate "millionaire flights" that do happen don't necessarily impact the way that's predicted on paper.

kadabra91mo ago

If they leave (and some already have) they take their tax base with them. Not just for this one time levy, but for future tax years too.

Then where will the state go to make up the revenue shortfall? Either raising taxes on other groups or cutting services.

I’m finished discussing this matter, let’s revisit this if and when this actually gets passed so we can see how much revenue was actually generated (or if it even survived legal challenges)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjohnnyanmac1mo ago0 comments

>And I did engage with the real point

You did not and still are not. This isnt about making billionaires cover the entire country's budget. Its about making sure power doesn't consolidate in any one person.

0 comments

kadabra91mo ago

You’re discussing raising corporate or individual income tax rates.

I’m discussing a proposed broad wealth tax on unrealized gains and assets.

The tax rates of the 50s were high, but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

johnnyanmacOP1mo ago

>but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

Yes, thanks for reiterating my main point.

Now if we use that same mindset and apply it to a wealth tax...

Or they can leave. If so: good. Make room for those who do want to innovate and not extract money from the people (and more beach space).

kadabra91mo ago

If they leave (and some already have) they take their tax base with them. Not just for this one time levy, but for future tax years too.

Then where will the state go to make up the revenue shortfall? Either raising taxes on other groups or cutting services.

I’m finished discussing this matter, let’s revisit this if and when this actually gets passed so we can see how much revenue was actually generated (or if it even survived legal challenges)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse