Hacker News Reader

I think you're extending "working class" to mean "people who live on wages instead of capital". But most people make an additional distinction inside wage earners between workers and professionals, i.e. mechanics, factory workers, nurses, assistants vs. doctors, lawyers, software engineers, managers, etc.

It's helpful in this little side discussion because policies that might affect people with (as GP says) any ability to make six figures in a year are pretty different than those that affect people without. The "works for a living" distinction isn't super relevant.

>I think you're extending "working class" to mean "people who live on wages instead of capital". But most people make an additional distinction inside wage earners between workers and professionals, i.e. mechanics, factory workers, nurses, assistants vs. doctors, lawyers, software engineers, managers, etc.

This is a meaningless distinction because there was a time where mechanics and factory workers also made 6 figure salaries. The divide should always be between someone who makes most of their money from labor rather than capital. Actors and basketball players are not people that I think should necessarily be more impacted by a wealth tax.

I don't want to diminish the importance of the distinction between income coming from wages vs capital, but I think there is also an important divide between people who are able to get ahead/accumulate wealth, and those who have to work as hard as they can just to scrape by.

It maybe was meaningless when that was true, but unfortunately it isn't now. There are so many differences between the professional class and the working class that it's hard to really think where to start, huge things like health outcomes, educational opportunities, bankruptcy risk, air pollution, wealth generation, political engagement, social politics, fertility rate.

I don't disagree that there are also huge differences between people making income from wages vs. capital, but that's beside the point.

Your comment about actors and basketball players confuses me a little. I think those are textbook high wage earners, not people who primarily live on capital (at least until they retire anyway). And presumably yeah, once you cross $100m (which I would guess not that many actors/athletes really do), it seems reasonable for a wealth tax to kick in. Isn't wealth wealth? Why should we make carve outs for specific professions?

> It's not uncommon to get a windfall (stock option vesting cliff, inheritance, capital gains, etc.) that boosts income in a single year to many multiples of one's typical income

Estate taxes don't kick in for estates worth less than $11.58 million and most states make immediate family exempt from all inheritance taxes.

Of course it does. The working class doesn’t get stock options, vesting cliffs, inheritance, or capital gains!

Or much of a savings account or 401k, for that matter.

The option to stop working for more than a few weeks or months takes you squarely out of the working class.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that the parent comment to ours is attempting to advocate for taxing just the billionaires and not to tax the moderately wealthy so much. I think that’s a flawed argument, because the moderately wealthy don’t need help, and are perhaps even more wealthy than they realize.

Plenty of normal working class people get options if they work at a tech company.

When I worked at Home depot as a lot boy I got stock options

> The working class doesn’t get stock options, vesting cliffs, inheritance, or capital gains!

robinhood.com would beg to differ. Anyone can invest in the stock market and get capital gains.

Not at the 500k level most of them aren't getting capital gains. Or is this "anyone can be a multimillionaire - just play the lottery and get lucky" level of technically true?

They're getting capital gains any time they sell a stock for more than they paid.

There's no magic threshhold of $500k.

>There's no magic threshhold of $500k.

In the US in 2021 (aka, right now) the magic threshold for capital gains is $445,850-$501,600 depending on filing status. So you're technically correct that $500k isn't a magic threshold, but it's certainly in the middle of it.

But more importantly, you're going down a technical rabbithole. The point of this comment chain is "what happens to people experiencing a one-time windfall capital gains of $500,000". The response was "what about RH investors". My point was they weren't making 500k, so it was irrelevant that they made income taxed as a capital gain. And I stand by that.

> they weren't making 500k, so it was irrelevant that they made income taxed as a capital gain

Sorry, but capital gains taxes start at $15,000.

> Sorry, but capital gains taxes start at $15,000

Long-term capital gains less than $40,400 (or higher, depending on filing status) have a 0% rate.

> In the US in 2021 (aka, right now) the magic threshold for capital gains is $445,850-$501,600 depending on filing status.

No, its not.

The transition point between the top (20%) and middle (15%; the bottom is zero) marginal rate of long-term capital gains rates are either exactly the top or bottom of that range for 3 of 4 tax filing statuses (you left off married filing separately, which is much lower than even the low end), but that’s not a “magic threshold” by any reasonable definition.

It's both a magic number and a threshold. Married filing separately is just 1/2 of married filing jointly, which is how it should be.

> It's both a magic number and a threshold

Its a threshold, but not one below which capital gains stops mattering, which was the significance falsesly ascribed to the “magic number".

If you had cited the bottom of the 15% bracket instead of the top as the magic number below which cap gains don’t matter, well, “magic” would still be overdramatic but you would at leaast have something of a point. But that’s close to an order of magnitude lower.

It's also irrelevant as I called out in my post. The question was "how do we tax average people making a windfall of 500k", not "let's talk exclusively long-term capital gains"