Hacker News Reader

Comment by revelation | Hacker News Reader

I know you just want to make the case for a more differentiated view here, but what you are in fact doing is defending a higher tax rate on work than for capital gains through mere ownership.

View on HN

Well, there are lots of reasons as to why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. I'm not advocating that any of them are correct (and, obviously, many countries tax capital gains and ordinary income at the same rate, or possibly capital gains at a higher rate), but you could argue that a lower tax rate on capital gains offsets the impact of double taxation (corporation is taxed on the income, then you are taxed on your income), or offsets inflation, or, probably most prominently, encourages investment which in turn can encourage innovation, and so on.

There presumably are other ways to reach these same results, but that's the policy choice we have made. I don't see it as much as valuing "mere" ownership over labor, just that we've made certain policy choices as to what incentives we want in our economy.

Precisely. I inherited tens of millions, then invested it, should I pay a lower rate than a person that works for a living?

I have no idea if you should, but in the US, you probably will. Depending on what year you inherited the money, you'll have paid up to 55%.

That seems reasonable. My problem is with the party that wants to abolish the estate tax and cut capital gains taxes.

In that case, the more "fair" solution is high inheritance tax (maybe it's already in place?).

Discouraging long-term investment through high capital gain is not a good solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com