Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom • Hacker News Board

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#101

Post by dang » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:41 AM UTC

kelukelugames wrote: post #2

>So why doesn't Graham recognize and advocate this? Perhaps it's because two of his biggest golden geese — Uber and AirBnB — are actually relying on exactly the kind of political influence I'm calling out here in order to survive and prosper. Whether this is true or not, we need to realize PG has motives. He doesn't write essays just for his health.

It's closer to "for health" than you'd think. If you talked to PG about this I'm sure you'd come away with the same sense. My impression is that he writes essays as a way of thinking and because it makes him happy.

Edit: these are representative of talking to him about it:

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/676834210976411648

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/680162174648492032

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#102

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:42 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #90

gnaritas wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, and these incentives are likely to cause companies to use subsidiaries and contract workers Only if the proposed change in rules contains such glaringly obvious loopholes; but I doubt that'll be the case, as the people trying to solve the problem have thought about it for more than 5 minutes.

Do you believe that "loopholes" are real things that really exist?

Remember the SUV tax rules in the late 1990s and early 2000s?

I recall the taxpayer making a substantial contribution to my truck purchase.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#103

Post by Turing_Machine » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:45 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #98

"I think the propaganda of "The Communists" has been drilled into the American public so solidly" You mean the part where communists murdered 100 million people in the last century? That "propaganda"?

Do you think modding this down is going to make those 100 million corpses go away? 'Cause it isn't.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#104

Post by elsewhen » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #6

I don't think Uber is a YC investment. It's certainly not listed as such under CrunchBase, nor have I seen any public article mentioning them as an investment.

he updated the post with a correction.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#105

Post by rubyfan » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

millstone wrote: post #67

rubyfan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly the parent does not believe in property rights when they believe unskilled non-differentiated labor should be rewarded with above market rates by force and at the expense of Walmart's shareholders. That individuals believe government should be directed at investors who risk their property to create wealth in order to take by force that property to redistribute it is perhaps the most offensive sentiment. > The…

I can think of about a million sentiments more offensive than the idea that people who invest should be taxed and that we should have a social safety net.

Ha, there aren't a million other sentiments in the grandparent comment.

No one is arguing the value of the social safety net. The comment goes above and beyond the safety net suggesting it shouldn't be needed and the remedy is redistribution. A safety net is one thing but arbitrarily inflating wages is another.

I don't believe the suggested remedy would be proposed by someone who believes in property rights. Further, as a person who believes in property rights I do find the sentiment of theft of property for redistribution offensive.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#106

Post by Pyxl101 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #44

rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon? What would happen is that Wal-Mart and Amazon, et al. would pay their fair share of taxes, and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. The effect would be that every single person in the United States would…

What specific taxes are Walmart and Amazon not paying that you think they should be paying, or why do you claim they're not paying their "fair share"?

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#107

Post by jessaustin » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:49 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #102

jessaustin wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that "loopholes" are real things that really exist?

Remember the SUV tax rules in the late 1990s and early 2000s? I recall the taxpayer making a substantial contribution to my truck purchase.

Did you know that truck manufacturers hire lobbyists who "help" legislators write the laws?

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#108

Post by VanillaLime » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:49 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #44

rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon? What would happen is that Wal-Mart and Amazon, et al. would pay their fair share of taxes, and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. The effect would be that every single person in the United States would…

>and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most

Are you proposing a >99% tax rate on capital or corporate income?

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#109

Post by runamok » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:51 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

Don't forget an enormous portion of the bush era tax cuts went just to the Waltons. Citation needed but I am on mobile right now.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#110

Post by pdonis » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:52 AM UTC

It looks to me like Garret and Graham are actually in violent agreement. :-) Garret wants to keep people from getting rich through political influence rather than creating wealth; Graham wants to make sure people can still get rich through creating wealth, even if they can't get rich through political influence.