←back to thread

191 points impish9208 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.617s | source
Show context
jparishy ◴[] No.45104627[source]
Wealth inequality is high. High enough you can feel it like a vibe in the air. The richest people in the world are telling everyone to get onboard with technology that is determined to make a lot of those same people's jobs redundant. All with an explicit goal of increasing the price of stock most of those people do not own.

IMO there's two economies, maybe divided by those who participate in the stock market and those who don't. We, Americans, have largely given up trying to improve the lives of people not in the first group. Economies are living, breathing entities and we're just grinding poorer people for fuel so richer people can have another house, another boat, another company. A lot of regular joes are really stressed out about paying rent. The loss in faith is warranted.

replies(8): >>45104697 #>>45104768 #>>45104835 #>>45104982 #>>45105432 #>>45105784 #>>45105888 #>>45107040 #
Buttons840 ◴[] No.45104835[source]
Income taxes are higher than capital gains taxes.

This isn't based on economic theory or anything, it's just a political choice we have made as a country. We've chosen to reward those who move money around and trade capital more than we reward those who labor. And this at a time when, supposedly, the country is trying to increase its ability to build things.

I thought this specific fact worth mentioning.

replies(5): >>45104925 #>>45104964 #>>45104996 #>>45105199 #>>45109116 #
jandrewrogers ◴[] No.45105199[source]
This is simply incorrect.

To make the tax incidence on wages and capital gains equivalent, you must first deduct losses due to inflation and risk. For wages, inflation and risk round to zero. For long-term capital gains inflation and risk are large and often the majority of the "gain". Short-term capital gains are already taxed like wages.

In the US, unlike some other developed countries, there is a very limited ability to deduct losses due to inflation and risk from long-term capital gains. Consequently, if they made the tax rate the same as wages then the tax incidence on capital gains would be much higher than wages.

As a policy matter in the US, they fix this large difference in tax incidence by reducing the tax rate instead of adjusting the cost basis for inflation and allowing full deductibility of losses.

If you pencil out the implications of these two policies, I suspect you'd find that you like the way the US does it better. Making risk and inflation deductible to equalize tax incidence enables a lot of financial structuring.

replies(7): >>45105391 #>>45105545 #>>45105762 #>>45106407 #>>45107539 #>>45108371 #>>45130410 #
1. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.45105545[source]
Imagine the risk of not being able to diversify your portfolio and putting all dependency on one income source. How do layoffs, broken health/major sickness, automation, local downturns get compensated by reducing future taxes? If I'm laid off for a year, then find a new job, I still pay the full tax amount on my income from that point forward, no 'loss deduction' from a year being unemployed. If I get sick with cancer and miss years of work then return, I still pay the full tax amount on my income.
replies(2): >>45108522 #>>45130549 #
2. jandrewrogers ◴[] No.45108522[source]
I agree with you that it is unfair that people with variable income pay more taxes than people with steady income even if average income is the same. I’m a poster child for people disadvantaged in this way.

That said, I do recognize that mitigating this is really hard without introducing even more complexity to the tax code, which has its own cost.

Wages have no risk when you receive them. It is cash on the barrel. The only risk is counter-party such as your employer going bankrupt before you receive your paycheck. Not zero but statistically very low. Any inflation that happens after receiving wages is on the individual to the extent no one requires them to eat that inflation. (This is an issue during hyperinflation but the is very far from that.)

replies(2): >>45109679 #>>45133276 #
3. ◴[] No.45109679[source]
4. greysphere ◴[] No.45130549[source]
Seems like it'd be relatively easy to allow one to 'smooth' their income over multiple years. Imagine paying 100 income at 40% tax year 1 and 0 income year 2. A scheme where you could retcon things to be 50, 50, each at say 30% for a 10k refund (or at least credit) seems very doable.
5. Nevermark ◴[] No.45133276[source]
The point wasn't to suggest doing that.

It was to point out, that giving asset sales an insurance break, or risk break, would only makes sense if we gave working people gapped-income and risk breaks.

Which is to say, that neither makes sense.

The way I would put it is, money inflates if you simply hold it, but it has time value almost always greater than inflation. If you don't at least do that, you are choosing to waste value.

So giving a tax break for inflation would be giving people a break on losses, that capitalism already accounts for. Such as naturally higher interest rates when inflation is higher.

(Yes return on asset balancing mechanisms are not perfect in time, but as noted, neither is employment.)