[deanmoriarty]

I do not agree at all. Governments should try to make life fair for people. In my opinion, once a person reaches something like $10M net worth (I took a number purely based on the current 1% of wealth in the US, but I’m not married to it), taxes should go to 100% and the government should use the proceeds to provide free services to the population, like education, healthcare, affordable housing and infrastructure.

I am saying this very naively without reflecting on the effects it would have on the economy, the inflationary forces and the overall corporate productivity. So I realize my view is mostly a romantic utopia, but nobody should be allowed to hoard billions, especially by inheritance.

[strken]

The problem with this is that wealth often means ownership of capital, capital often means ownership of a private company, and so you have a peculiar situation where the government takes gradual ownership of your business once it starts to do well.

There's probably a way to work around this by making it non-voting stock or something, but it's still an inherent dampener on growth, because there's no incentive to grow, and on RnD, because there's no concentration of capital. A silicon fab is worth billions; does your system imply that the only way to build one is to either arrange a consortium of 10,000 people or government funding? HN exists because of PayPal; should the PayPal money have been spent entirely on free services? How are you going to stop the black market[0]? What are the alternate routes to power in your society, and are they better than acquiring money?

You can envisage worlds where this does function, but there's a lot of work to put in regarding the specifics, and doing the work makes you realise their might be a lot of downsides.

[0] Around 80% of North Koreans' income was once acquired through the black market: https://web.archive.org/web/20110924095232/http://www.atimes...

[rjmunro]

> A silicon fab is worth billions; the only way to build one is to either arrange a consortium of 10,000 people or government funding

That's how most large stuff gets built now. "a consortium of 10,000 people" is a corporation. There are lots of them on the NYSE etc.. Government funding also happens a lot.

Federal Tax rates in the USA when Intel was founded were 70%.

[missedthecue]

the consortiums on the NYSE are investing to be richer in the future. If you've already hit the $10M cap, what's the point? If your semi fab investment does well, you have to sell something else to stay within the law.

[strken]

You don't just have to sell your assets, you have to spend the money from the sale too. If you still want to improve your future, that means you spend it on things that don't show up as wealth. Some of those are going to be great (education, prestige from endowments, charitable donations), but others are less so (bribery, lobbying, attaining political power, money laundering, self-interested "charities" like building a park next to your own house).

[xtiansimon]

“…peculiar situation where the government takes gradual ownership of your business once it starts to do well.”

I get the gist od the argument, but to call it ownership is perverse. It’s like insurance companies and their ~$300 salvage fee they charge if you have an accident and the repair cost is greater than the ‘value’ of the vehicle. They argue if they pay you for the full value of your vehicle, they are in effect buying the vehicle from you. If you decide to keep the vehicle, they will attempt to claw ‘salvage value’ or the amount they get from a junk yard. So far I’m 1 for 1, arguing the vehicle has to be for sale for ownership to pass to another.

Another thing I find perverse is the expectation of continual year to year growth—-to infinity.

[pb7]

>taxes should go to 100% and the government should use the proceeds to provide free services to the population, like education, healthcare, affordable housing and infrastructure

There won't be too many proceeds because people would simply stop working at that point. I'm far from being taxed at 100% (~50% marginal all in) and my motivation to increase my pay is already very low. I optimize for fewer hours worked at the same pay now.

[kevincrane]

> I'm far from being taxed at 100% (~50% marginal all in) and my motivation to increase my pay is already very low.

Do you think that's because you're already making enough money to put you at or near the top tax bracket? Sounds like your lack of motivation is because you're already making enough and don't need more, not that the government might get an extra 8% out of you.

[pb7]

I would definitely work (a bit but not infinitely) more if taxes were significantly lower.

The math is pretty simple. Everyone has 24 hours in a day. I get paid X to work Y hours. My free time Z is 24-Y hours. It's not worth it to trade any more of my remaining Z hours just to have >50% immediately taken away. I don't get any more hours in a day by working more. Instead, I increase my hourly income (the accurate value of my labor) by cutting Y to 1/2 or 1/3 while still making X. I work less, have more free time, and government doesn't make more from my labor than I do. Easy. (Note: If I were to magically find a job that paid twice as much with the same crazy good work-life balance, I would of course take it regardless of marginal taxes. But such magic is hard to come by and not worth the risk at this point.)

Advanced version: on top of the marginal rate being 50%, I live in an expensive place where not only does it get taxed higher as if I'm uber rich, but I get to pay more for all of my expenses. It's like a double fuck you. Even less motivation. This stuff is real and anyone who's in my position has given it some thought even if it's not so formulaic, hence the outflow of people from CA to cheaper, less tax-y places.

[thrashh]

People aren’t moving out of CA to less tax-y places. They’re moving to cheaper places (with less to offer).

There’s a net migration of rich people into CA (and there always has been). It’s the lower income that move out because they simply can’t afford CA. Rich people can afford CA and so they move here.

[pb7]

Many wealthy SWEs are moving to Texas and Florida for reasons that boil down to “no state tax” and “cheaper”, both points I’ve explained the math behind.

This isn’t really a political point. I like living in California (for now) and wouldn’t move to either of the other states just for the savings. Not worth it.

[deanmoriarty]

Great! Let’s put a wealth tax of 10% a year in addition to the 100% marginal tax rate, that will move some asses!

[dalmo3]

Move to another country?

[klipt]

America taxes its citizens globally, so they can't escape just by moving.

[ghufran_syed]

they can, they would just have to give up their citizenship

[pvaldes]

Easily solved investing most of their money into buying a European or Chinese company and putting a trusting non US citizen at charge. Convenience flags are used since decades.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

10m+ is not the money you earn by working. It's money you earn by owning something.

[cercatrova]

If you work in tech, you might make 10 million in 30 years or so. What are you owning at that point, stocks? And what's wrong with making money by owning something?

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

1) After having worked in tech for 30years, value of your stocks/real estate will far exceed the sum of all your salaries received.

2) Nothing wrong, just stating the facts.

[chrismcb]

It isn't even a romantic utopia, it is more like a living hell. Rich people create businesses and jobs, that is usually how they are wealthy. If the marginal tax rate guess up to 100% sorry 10 million, there is very little incentive for people to earn more than 10 million. And either they will stop trying to earn, out they will move. On top of that, these people don't earn as much as you think they do. In addition, these people don't burn money, they spend it. Which allows others to earn money.

[HWR_14]

Other than butler or yacht captain, what jobs do rich people create?

[sokoloff]

Over half of the jobs held by HN posters, for starters.

[HWR_14]

Well, that's a non-answer. What types of jobs are those?

[germandiago]

Are you suggesting you should qualify the jobs people create? The important thing is if someone wants to do it or not.

[HWR_14]

> Are you suggesting you should qualify the jobs people create?

Well, I started by saying that the only jobs were yacht captains and butlers (slight exaggeration) and was told that many of the jobs were things people on this message board had. So, yeah, that's what the topic is.

[sokoloff]

Google SWE, Amazon SWE, Meta SWE, Netflix SWE, Microsoft SWE, AirBnB SWE, Dropbox SWE, Hooli SWE,…

[HWR_14]

How are any of those jobs "created by rich people"?

[missedthecue]

literally every company that is funded by YC is funded by rich people hoping to get richer.

[germandiago]

> taxes should go to 100% and the government should use the proceeds to provide free services

I think you are pretty cruel to people that produce useful things for others. You are saying that people who offer something valuable for others should be mercilessly punished.

What you are saying is that people that contribute less than these people to society should be gifted with the effort of people that are useful to the society, making the wealthy (I mean licit wealth, of course, not criminal one) a means for others to live in better conditions.

Also, you are proposing to violate the principle of people being equal under the law. If I earn xyz, they spoil me, if I earn "too much". If I earn nothing and do not contribute in any meaningful way (even to sustain myself), then I am a blessed person that can get things for free.

Not a good arrangement to create wealth for others, if you ask me. Besides being terribly unfair.

[fragmede]

> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread-the rich as well as the poor.

-Anatole France

Turn it up to $100 million instead of $10. What you call unfair, is obscene, that outsized level of influence that one person should be able to have on society. The problem is the sheer amount of wealth so far beyond what a single person could use up in one life, while others languish and go hungry. Capitalism is merely a way of organizing society. The cruelty doesn't have to be the point. In order to incentivize the rich, we give them money. To incentivize the poor, we take more away. Who then go hungry. Is that the American dream? That I should be able to afford $1,500 bottles of champagne while my countrymen starve for not working hard enough?

[germandiago]

You are missing something here: if I earn little, I can build a business to earn more.

If you are a worker you are exchanging comfortability for risk. You will make less, for sure. I am myself employed. But every month I get the bill. If you do not want that, risk your capital.

I wonder if it is so bad to work so hard for others, why don't more people build a business? There must be something we are not being honest about here, otherwise everyone would build one.

By the way, noone that makes their own wealth are to be blamed of the bad luck of others. I think we should help those people you mention. Those people starving. But voluntarily or offering them the chance to cooperate with the society. Unless they have some handicap, if they do not want to cooperate it is not me who is to be blamed. In that case, it would be them who are the person to look at for trying to live from others. And for that, it does not matter I can afford that champagne or not.

Besides that, the fact that people like that exist does not mean other people are poorer. I could open a website now and get rich and I would not be making anyone poorer, just making myself richer. And probably others, to operate the website itself.

[orangecat]

taxes should go to 100% and the government should use the proceeds

What proceeds?

[dijonman2]

I cannot disagree more. There is a simple principle in life: we must cooperate to survive. The moment we subsidize people getting something for free it materially changes motivation to work, which is a slow but fatal death. Free doesn’t exist. Everyone must earn their keep.

[barbazoo]

What a harsh world that would be.

[dijonman2]

Isn’t it the world we currently live in?

[barbazoo]

Not where I live fortunately. We have social systems that care about people that cannot "earn their keep".

[GavinMcG]

Do schoolchildren need to earn their education?

[pb7]

After they receive their education and mature into fully functioning adults, of course.

[vasco]

That's the expectation built into all modern societies. That's what it means to pay tax when you grow up.

[zarzavat]

That's clearly not how it works. Kids who drop out of primary/secondary education don't get to pay lower taxes in adulthood. Taxes pay for current spending, and the taxes you pay are in return for living in a society.

[vasco]

This is too literal a view of the world that doesn't help progress the discussion. Obviously no child pays for exactly the chair they sat on in the classroom, or the piece of chalk they used to write on a blackboard, or whatever they use in classrooms these days.

When I say "you pay for your own schooling through taxes" I'm saying that most countries have tax systems where citizens contribute according to their earnings / net-worth, a share of the costs of running all of the parts of society that aren't privately owned - or some approximation of this idea.

This means that if you're paying your taxes, the implication is that you're paying "your share" of running education for society and someone did that for you when you were a kid. Maybe you're paying for iPads in 2022 for other people's kids where you only had chalk, but some other schmucks also paid the doctors salary (unless you're in the US I guess? not sure how that works there) that delivered your birth and nobody expected you to hand over a dollar bill as a newborn to pay for yourself.

[GavinMcG]

But that's exactly the distinction that matters. Treating the services one has received as a debt implies that one must pay back that debt and is free of any other obligation. In reality, as you're pointing out, we're all contributing to the current and future wellbeing of each other, and we all benefited from others' contributions in the past.

Pay-it-back vs. invest/pay-it-forward have quite different political implications, and the fact that society does and always has been in pay-it-forward mode gives lie to the earlier commenter's claim that subsidies are slow but fatal.

[908B64B197]

> once a person reaches something like $10M net worth

I'll re-write your proposal:

"Once a person reaches something like $10M net worth they start donating huge sums of money to the charities they have created and who has their family members on board. One of them fully restored and is doing the maintenance on an authentic Gulfstream aircraft from the beginning of the century! An other one has created a school for the (still minor so he can’t claim his $10M yet) heir and a fund to send one student (chosen by the family) to Harvard on a full ride should he be accepted".

[kutenai]

The concept of "government should.." is fundamentally flawed. As soon as "government ... " starts taxing all the money from the right, then the GOVERNMENT simply BECOMES the rich, and that same power will corrupt those in power, be they democrat, republican, socialist.. it does not matter.

Once government "takes" all of the capital "for the presumed good of society", government will very rapidly become the enemy. Corruption will grow and grow, and society will be in the position of a corrupt, all powerful government.

It does not work folks. Read history, don't relive it like a bunch of idiotic sheep