There's a related calculation you can do -- what percent of your net worth is your employability? Take your salary, divide by 0.05 (or multiply by 20) -- if you had that much additional wealth earning 5%, you could replace your job's income.
For most people their ability to earn is by far their largest asset. You can kind of get a feel for how difficult it is to bootstrap into generational wealth if you think about the math -- it takes time to replace that earnings portion of your own balance sheet, and even more to well replace it; a lot has to go right in the interim.
> To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%.
This seems to only be true for people whose income entirely comes from their wealth, rather than their labor. The math doesn't math for someone on the other extreme end of the spectrum who has zero savings or investments and obtains all his income from labor: To him, a N% wealth tax = 0% income tax for all N. Those with -some- savings are somewhere in the middle.
It is a very sneaky way to argue that a wealth tax should be as across-the-board unpopular as a large income tax increase. But Graham's math is only applicable to those flush with investments and with relatively small salaries from labor, so a wealth tax is only unpopular to that particular group.
Not even that. Someone who got laid off by one of Paul Graham's friends likely has decent investments and is receiving relatively small salaries from labor (that is, 0, unless you're counting unemployment insurance, and then, is that saved-up labor pay, delayed and amortized, or "investment" income from your taxes?). And if that person is class-conscious, or at least self-interested, they should be 100% on-board with a wealth tax.
As I commented elsewhere, everyone gets affected by a wealth tax, as it will affect how assets are priced and how businesses operate across the board.
For those who have little hope of the wealth tax applied to them (me for example), but as as someone who has investments and need them for retirement, I need to decide if this will affect bond prices or equity prices in a positive or negative way as their attractiveness will change in relative terms, or if publicly accessible funds will get devalued in favor of private investment opportunities and all public assets get devalued. Oh, wait, I am not wealthy, so I do not have the option of private equity, and cannot participate in what would be an attractive investment opportunity when investments shift towards more opaque assets.
For those that have zero assets, I do not think that a shift by the wealthy to private equity is a good thing, unless you want to work for a private equity company. A government job would be your best bet. And a shift to private equity would have a downward pressure on tax collections, so whatever projections for how much a wealth tax would generate, I am suspect.
A lot of people complain about private equity. This scourge was, to a small or large degree depending on your viewpoint, an unintended side effect of SOX compliance, meant to protect investors, and in the end narrowed down the amount of public companies, and created more opportunities/demand for PE. I think it is debatable how much protection investors actually received.
We live in a system, and making a fundamental change to one part of that system has effects on all parts. Raising the amount of taxes under the current system ? That is one thing. Introducing a whole new tax concept, difficult to predict. Especially if this is done by states, which could cause capital movements with their own unexpected consequences.
Also, this seems to ignore a major problem with how progressive income tax rates are figured in the US.
You can work for years at a startup at a depressed wage, then have a windfall that makes up for it on average.
That windfall (in California) will be taxed at a marginal rate of 52%. The only people that ever pay nearly that much are middle class. Some sort of time averaging would help.
Anyway, the US tax code is complicated. Personally, I’d prefer a flat tax with universal basic income. This could replace income, capital gains and inheritance taxes in their entirety. (Along with a lot of social services bureaucracy).
Is this situation so uncommon? Almost everyone who lives in a house in California, for example, is living primarily off the unrealized gains on their home equity. Very few have the wage income to qualify for a mortgage on what their lifestyle is worth now.
Australia is proposing a CGT tax of 30% on "capital gains" .. essentially taxing the _income_ from wealth.
This is more of a fair comparable to reason about when comparing taxing wealth and taxing wages.
In nerd-speak, taxing the Derivative of Wealth is comparable to taxing Income.
You could argue that a fair comparison of wages and wealth would first subtract the minimum cost of living, so that wage tax is effectively a tax on the growing wealth of wage-earners. This would arguably be a fairer tax comparison - in both cases it is the derivative of wealth that is being taxed.
If a large portion of the populace spends all their income on basic food, rent and petrol then they have no chance of wealth increase, and perhaps should fairly be charged 30% of their $0 growth in annual wealth.
A much more interesting formula would be how to convert between income and income tax - you'd think it worked according to the superficial bracket system, but in fact, it works along the lines of going to 0 at the top.
P.S. a wealth tax is a property tax. They have existed in the US since before the income tax (which was originally considered unconstitutional by its opponents).
Paul the billionaire ignoring that billionaires often don't pay any income tax at all. Come on man, we're not stupid just because we don't own superyachts.
I don’t follow the debate and situation in the US that closely but isn’t (part of) the point of wealth tax to offset the fact that rich people are routinely avoiding paying income tax and taxes in general? Thus even if we assume the simplistic conversion here, it’s not that they’re moved from 40->60 bracket but more like <10 -> <30 ?
I think the assumption that we're looking for an equivalence here is fundamentally flawed and with it the entire post.
For most people income is tied to selling their time. It doesn't scale at all. Unless the income comes from wealth.
The societal problem here is a group with self-reinforcing run-away levels of wealth. And to counter that you do need something more extreme than this nonsensical equivalency of income tax
The bigger difference between an income tax and a wealth tax isn't the numbers. A wealth tax, for better or worse requires some realization of paper gains that very wealthy folks normally go to great lengths to avoid because their wealth is largely based on a broadly shared polite fiction. So imposing some realization of that wealth requires accountability that doesn't always pan out.
>It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
His core point seems to be that taking $20 from him is mathematically equivalent to taking $20 from a homeless girl's hat.
I guess mathematically it is the same number if you dont normalize for that, which he wont.
> It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
Uh … sure I would? Why not? The top bracket was 70% in the 80s. So that 61% is still a fair bit short of what it was then. (And the 80s isn't the highest point, either.)
IDK if it would be a good idea or not, but I'd entertain the debate, certainly. To state that this is unarguable, though, well…
Not everybody uses money to make more money, Paul. Most people work, get paid, and spend the money on their needs. In other words, you are in a position to care about the question, it's OK if you are taxed a bit more.
Are there serious proposals to just add a wealth tax on top of the existing income tax that would apply to the sort of people who actually pay much in income tax vs capital gains? It's an honest question; I haven't seen proposals of that sort, so I'm skeptical that the arguments are meaningful here. For an individual like Jeff Bezos, he's paying virtually no tax under the normal income tax rates referenced in the article, but rather capital gains tax, which tops out at 20%, not 37%.
Lots of confusion and misunderstanding in these comments. Not surprising, given the highly charged nature of the subject. I highly recommend Ray Madoff's book The Second Estate [1] to learn more about the topic.
Because billionaires accumulate wealth through assets and unrealized gains, many of them skip taking a traditional income and pay. If the numbers in the links below are to be believed, according to paulgraham's calculations, this might bump them into a ~fair range (when comparing to average/median earners).
The conversion would be more accurate if it compared wealth and capital gains taxes, no?
A defining feature of wealth taxes is that they only tax those that make most of their income through capital gains. This is why they're popular among much of the population.
Now the question is, if we lowered capgains tax rate by 20% but instituted a 1% wealth tax, would that be better or worse? My guess would be worse because wealth taxes are nearly unenforcable, but I wonder if there are good arguments for the other position.
I think Paul thinks people care about the distinction, or think that a 20% marginal increase to the nation's wealthiest is something the public would find "unfair".
Rich people need to stop hanging out with other rich people.
> So in the median case, a state adding an additional 20% in income tax would have a total marginal tax rate of 37% + 4.75% + 20%, or 61.75%
Good! It should still be higher!
There's nothing more tone deaf than an uber wealthy man arguing he shouldn't pay more in taxes to the system that allows him to be uber wealthy and to be deliberately misleading at the same time.
1. Most people do not derive even a fraction of their income from interest on wealth.
2. Earning income from interest on wealth requires zero effort. That isn't true for salaries.
3. Income and wealth are totally different things. You can find a way to equate them in one contrived example but there are so many other factors involved in the real world.
155 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 58.8 ms ] threadFor most people their ability to earn is by far their largest asset. You can kind of get a feel for how difficult it is to bootstrap into generational wealth if you think about the math -- it takes time to replace that earnings portion of your own balance sheet, and even more to well replace it; a lot has to go right in the interim.
This seems to only be true for people whose income entirely comes from their wealth, rather than their labor. The math doesn't math for someone on the other extreme end of the spectrum who has zero savings or investments and obtains all his income from labor: To him, a N% wealth tax = 0% income tax for all N. Those with -some- savings are somewhere in the middle.
It is a very sneaky way to argue that a wealth tax should be as across-the-board unpopular as a large income tax increase. But Graham's math is only applicable to those flush with investments and with relatively small salaries from labor, so a wealth tax is only unpopular to that particular group.
For those who have little hope of the wealth tax applied to them (me for example), but as as someone who has investments and need them for retirement, I need to decide if this will affect bond prices or equity prices in a positive or negative way as their attractiveness will change in relative terms, or if publicly accessible funds will get devalued in favor of private investment opportunities and all public assets get devalued. Oh, wait, I am not wealthy, so I do not have the option of private equity, and cannot participate in what would be an attractive investment opportunity when investments shift towards more opaque assets.
For those that have zero assets, I do not think that a shift by the wealthy to private equity is a good thing, unless you want to work for a private equity company. A government job would be your best bet. And a shift to private equity would have a downward pressure on tax collections, so whatever projections for how much a wealth tax would generate, I am suspect.
A lot of people complain about private equity. This scourge was, to a small or large degree depending on your viewpoint, an unintended side effect of SOX compliance, meant to protect investors, and in the end narrowed down the amount of public companies, and created more opportunities/demand for PE. I think it is debatable how much protection investors actually received.
We live in a system, and making a fundamental change to one part of that system has effects on all parts. Raising the amount of taxes under the current system ? That is one thing. Introducing a whole new tax concept, difficult to predict. Especially if this is done by states, which could cause capital movements with their own unexpected consequences.
You can work for years at a startup at a depressed wage, then have a windfall that makes up for it on average.
That windfall (in California) will be taxed at a marginal rate of 52%. The only people that ever pay nearly that much are middle class. Some sort of time averaging would help.
Anyway, the US tax code is complicated. Personally, I’d prefer a flat tax with universal basic income. This could replace income, capital gains and inheritance taxes in their entirety. (Along with a lot of social services bureaucracy).
California contains a lot of houses!
This is more of a fair comparable to reason about when comparing taxing wealth and taxing wages.
In nerd-speak, taxing the Derivative of Wealth is comparable to taxing Income.
You could argue that a fair comparison of wages and wealth would first subtract the minimum cost of living, so that wage tax is effectively a tax on the growing wealth of wage-earners. This would arguably be a fairer tax comparison - in both cases it is the derivative of wealth that is being taxed.
If a large portion of the populace spends all their income on basic food, rent and petrol then they have no chance of wealth increase, and perhaps should fairly be charged 30% of their $0 growth in annual wealth.
So complaining about having to contribute to the society that gave the conditions for your vast wealth is going to get you 0 sympathy
P.S. a wealth tax is a property tax. They have existed in the US since before the income tax (which was originally considered unconstitutional by its opponents).
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
For most people income is tied to selling their time. It doesn't scale at all. Unless the income comes from wealth.
The societal problem here is a group with self-reinforcing run-away levels of wealth. And to counter that you do need something more extreme than this nonsensical equivalency of income tax
His core point seems to be that taking $20 from him is mathematically equivalent to taking $20 from a homeless girl's hat.
I guess mathematically it is the same number if you dont normalize for that, which he wont.
Hell, I'll be the first in line to pay the damn tax so long as billionaires are right in line with me too.
Uh … sure I would? Why not? The top bracket was 70% in the 80s. So that 61% is still a fair bit short of what it was then. (And the 80s isn't the highest point, either.)
IDK if it would be a good idea or not, but I'd entertain the debate, certainly. To state that this is unarguable, though, well…
Income tax doesn’t affect unrealized capital gains (where the rich “hide” most of their income).
A wealth tax (even without a minimum threshold) doesn’t apply to the poorest who can’t accumulate enough to even have any savings.
This conversion only works for income that is entirely saved and reinvested, which the majority of people can’t afford to do.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo256019...
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34170 https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-tru...
A defining feature of wealth taxes is that they only tax those that make most of their income through capital gains. This is why they're popular among much of the population.
Now the question is, if we lowered capgains tax rate by 20% but instituted a 1% wealth tax, would that be better or worse? My guess would be worse because wealth taxes are nearly unenforcable, but I wonder if there are good arguments for the other position.
Rich people need to stop hanging out with other rich people.
Good! It should still be higher!
There's nothing more tone deaf than an uber wealthy man arguing he shouldn't pay more in taxes to the system that allows him to be uber wealthy and to be deliberately misleading at the same time.
1. Most people do not derive even a fraction of their income from interest on wealth.
2. Earning income from interest on wealth requires zero effort. That isn't true for salaries.
3. Income and wealth are totally different things. You can find a way to equate them in one contrived example but there are so many other factors involved in the real world.
Billionaires gonna billionaire.