Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 462 posts

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#431

Post by danharaj »

baddox wrote: post #222
tbrownaw wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? There are certain constraints that any large-scale system made of people has to work under, for example the sort of things that make communism not work very well at scales larger than a small commune. Any localized parts of such a system, need to mesh properly with the larger system. Much that is demonized as "exploitative" (not all, but…

> So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? I suspect that the commenter means that any sociopolitical system other than his or her preferred one is unethical, which is what anyone who makes moral arguments for sociopolitical systems (i.e. nearly everyone I have ever met) is implicitly claiming.

What else would motivate someone to make an ethical argument besides thinking that the thing they oppose is unethical?

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#432

Post by duaneb »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #425
duaneb wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is advancement desirable? Giving people more responsibility when they prove they can handle it is one thing. It's entirely another to equate advancement with monetary compensation. In general, I believe people should be incentivized with responsibility, which is in everyone's interest. Cash compensation only benefits one person; doubly so when considering the rate of tax avoidance in the upper echelons of income.

Theoretically, some kind of centrally-managed state that did regular performance reviews and allotted you responsibility could work to settle this particular point. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a separate discussion and would work purely considering this point. The United States isn't the right country for such a system, though. You might look at Japan: their corporations motivate people with social…

Fair points!

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#433

Post by undersuit »

CydeWeys wrote: post #430
undersuit wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't there be taxes on land and no ownership? You can't tax land use? Are all the shelters floating above the land? No records? What's the problem that makes taxing land with no ownership untenable?

There wouldn't be any shelters on unowned land because it would be foolish to improve it if anyone could take your improvements from you at a moment's notice. Now you need a government to enforce exclusive use of the land by a given person, and guess what, that's ownership.

But you're paying taxes on the shelter. Your shelter.

If someone takes your improvement from you that's theft. We have laws regarding theft in most countries do we not?

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#434

Post by baddox »

danharaj wrote: post #431
baddox wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? I suspect that the commenter means that any sociopolitical system other than his or her preferred one is unethical, which is what anyone who makes moral arguments for sociopolitical systems (i.e. nearly everyone I have ever met) is implicitly claiming.

What else would motivate someone to make an ethical argument besides thinking that the thing they oppose is unethical?

Probably nothing. I'm just making this explicit, because people tend to not come right out and say "if you disagree with me then you're evil."

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#435

Post by dang »

awt wrote: post #373
tamana wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are lining up around the block to adopt poor non-white babies? Mothers have no natural human emotions of attachment to their offspring?

They aren't? If you can find the stats for non-white newborns I'd read them. What kind of empathy does a mother have for her child that would raise him without a father in poverty? What empathy does a single mother have for the people from whom she is taking money in the form of welfare?

I don't think it's single mothers who lack empathy here.

If you have something thoughtful to say about a difficult topic, that's fine, but please don't post ideological rhetoric to HN threads.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#436

Post by Consultant32452 »

vkou wrote: post #404
Consultant32452 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having access to incredibly high interest temporary credit means having the same problem next month and this new problem of having to pay off the high interest credit bill. You're generally not going to be evicted for a temporary hiccup. Late bill penalties are almost certainly going to be less than the payday loan fees. I have mixed feelings about the making bail bit.

My bounced check fee is $30 from my landlord, $30 from my bank. My late rent fee is $30. My late utility fee is $5, but if I paid by a bounced check, that would be $35. In other cities, it could be much higher. The fee for not paying a fine on time can be a weekend stint in jail, whereby you will get charged for room and board. The fee for not being able to pay for car repairs is losing your job. The fee for not payi…

I agree poor people aren't stupid, you're projecting that on me. People who go to payday loan places are generally desperate. And desperation can often lead to irrational decisions. It seems like the major contention between us is that you believe that payday loans are good because in a vanishingly small percentage of cases they provide a net good. Virtually all of the data shows that in aggregate payday loans are a net bad.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#437

Post by dang »

imaginenore wrote: post #303
kefka wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. Unless you were in on the ground floor with CPU mining, you aren't getting many coins now. There was only 6 months where you could use GFX cards, and now the "room full of ASICs" take the cake. Bitcoin is useful if you have goods, services, or currency to convert to it. It is not "free magical money". Its main attribute is that it is stateless... and that's a big deal and also not a big deal to those whom…

You're really beating that straw man, hit harder, you're about to win.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#438

Post by CydeWeys »

undersuit wrote: post #433
CydeWeys wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wouldn't be any shelters on unowned land because it would be foolish to improve it if anyone could take your improvements from you at a moment's notice. Now you need a government to enforce exclusive use of the land by a given person, and guess what, that's ownership.

But you're paying taxes on the shelter. Your shelter. If someone takes your improvement from you that's theft. We have laws regarding theft in most countries do we not?

If something can be stolen from you, then you own it. You're trying to have it both ways by playing with semantics.

A land value tax charges taxes for owning land. Now you're saying that it wouldn't be taxes on the land, but rather, taxes on improvements. Then it's no longer a land value tax at all then. The whole point of a land-value tax is that the tax reflects the potential value of the land, regardless of any improvements that might be on it, e.g. the Empire State Building or a flat parking lot would owe the same amount of LVT in midtown Manhattan. What you are proposing is a regular property tax, which does take improvements into account.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#439

Post by eru »

RyanZAG wrote: post #338
gradstudent wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until then let them eat cake? Of course not. But neither is it all or nothing; slum or safety net. My point is the root cause needs to be explicitly identified before it can be rectified. The root cause in this case is America's fetishism for small government and smaller taxes.

Woah, I'm not from America, but that seems really wrong. More taxes and bigger government does not create any sort of extra benefit for the poor - the extra taxes will simply go to creating more levels of indirection and inflated prices in existing government. Why do you think anything with a government stamp is automatically 10x the price? It's not because of people wanting smaller government. Smaller government is…

> Why do you think anything with a government stamp is automatically 10x the price?

In general, yes. But not in the best run governments---Singapore comes to mind.

(But even Europe isn't quite as bad as the US. American public procurement---especially for infrastructure projects---is truly hideous and expensive by global standards.)

The Swiss seem a good model if you are looking for how localized government can work.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#440

Post by eru »

sokoloff wrote: post #343
jacobush wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. Also that for some reason, the government can print money to bail out banks, but when it comes to fixing housing and actually help people, it has to come from taxes. I don't quite understand this.

ALL of the government spending has to come from taxes eventually. It can come today or tomorrow. It can be raised smartly or stupidly, but it's going to come from taxes one way or another.

Depends on how you define taxes. Also, some governments own assets and use returns from those.

(And just to be pedantic, historically there's also spoils from conquest.)

There's also government debt. I know you could argue that this has to be paid back eventually---but when interest rates are below inflation, that's a better than free loan. (And in theory they could invest in assets that yield even more, instead of just consuming the difference between inflation and interest.)

Most people buy government debt out of their own volition even at these low rates. (And if it's foreigners buying it, there's even less direct coercion via regulation involved.)

Post reply on HN