[aeturnum]

We have a progressive tax system, which generally taxes higher incomes at greater rates. Maybe we do want the Roth to be an unlimited shelter, but that has generally not been the approach we have taken.

> The "problem" in this case is that Thiel was already a billionaire to begin with, and such luck on top of existing wealth is what irrationally bothers people.

This isn't how I feel and I don't actually think that is the case ProPublica is making. Tax breaks can also be understood as payments - is it in the interest of the US to pay Thiel to put his money in a Roth? How much should the US pay? How many of your tax dollars would you want to go to funding tax breaks for Thiel?

I am sure people are vindictive as well, but the tax questions seem both meaningful and work asking to me.

[beaner]

I think this is a strange zero-sum way of interpreting things. It assumes tax income is fixed in some way, and that some not being taxed means others always get taxed more. That's false.

[marris]

> Is it in the interest of the US to pay Thiel to put his money in a Roth? How much should the US pay? How many of your tax dollars would you want to go to funding tax breaks for Thiel?

I submit that yes, it is in the interest of the US to do this, provided that Thiel is creating value for the US (and to some extent the world) with that money. $5B is approximately one day of US government spending (maybe less now). Letting Thiel invest $5B may not be the best investment decision that the USG has ever made (e.g. Internet funding, Telsa support), but it is way higher than the mean decision.