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

451–460 of 462 posts

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

#451

Post by CydeWeys »

undersuit wrote: post #450
CydeWeys wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 im…

I didn't say the shelter was being taxed for value. The shelter is on land. You pay taxes on the land. Ergo, you're paying taxes for the shelter. The only reason you'll probably want to continue paying taxes on the land is because you have a shelter there. >If something can be stolen from you, then you own it. Right, you have been grant the right to use the land as long as you pay the taxes, which you may or may not…

So you're proposing the exact same system that we have now, working in the same way, except that you aren't calling it ownership for some reason, even though being granted the exclusive right to use land by the governemnt, and paying taxes on said land, is what ownership is.

I just don't think that you've thought any of this through, or that you have a coherent image in your mind as to what you're proposing, or how it's different in any way from the status quo.

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

#452

Post by undersuit »

CydeWeys wrote: post #451
undersuit wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say the shelter was being taxed for value. The shelter is on land. You pay taxes on the land. Ergo, you're paying taxes for the shelter. The only reason you'll probably want to continue paying taxes on the land is because you have a shelter there. >If something can be stolen from you, then you own it. Right, you have been grant the right to use the land as long as you pay the taxes, which you may or may not…

So you're proposing the exact same system that we have now, working in the same way, except that you aren't calling it ownership for some reason, even though being granted the exclusive right to use land by the governemnt, and paying taxes on said land, is what ownership is. I just don't think that you've thought any of this through, or that you have a coherent image in your mind as to what you're proposing, or how i…

What's the problem that makes taxing land with no ownership untenable?

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

#453

Post by randyrand »

personjerry wrote: post #255
randyrand wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of that wealth is held in things that inherently have value. Homes will still have value. Cars. Gold. Ect. So you're saying to just steal it all from their owners? What a novel concept.

I might argue that "inherent" isn't as inherent as it really seems to be, in terms of "monetary value". (But I agree that there is value in the utility of the vehicle, and that leads me to the second point.) Indeed in this sort of anarchy I might go so far as to argue that property should also be redistributed. While this sounds like stealing, if we might be a little crazy and "open-minded", we might think in the sen…

> we might think in the sense that some people always unfairly make more money

Some people also very fairly make more money and work their butts off for it, sacrificing along the way.

What do you say to those people?

I enjoy your hypotheticals tho.

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

#454

Post by pc2g4d »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #355
erikb wrote: post #290

It's really hard for me to start reading. Yes, there are other reasons for poverty, and yes people make money out of poor people. But that doesn't really mean that this reasoning replaces the reason that many poor people don't know how to handle money, family, friends well enough to keep their head above the water. And most of the examples they use seem to underline that as far as I can see. Poverty has a lot of face…

> But that doesn't really mean that this reasoning replaces the reason that many poor people don't know how to handle money, family, friends well enough to keep their head above the water. Do you have a citation for this opinion? Seems you're shifting focus from the concrete cause of poverty, lack of money/resources, to one of character. The article points out that others profit from this lack of resources and contri…

Maybe it's not character so much as a particular skill set called money management?

I'm not sure I'm convinced of this, but I think that's the idea.

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

#455

Post by darawk »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #445
darawk wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not coercion. You fundamentally misunderstand (or apparently disagree with) literally all of western philosophy and economic thought if you think that charging rents in a voluntary exchange is 'coercion'. The simple fact is that, over many thousands of years, humans have evolved a system of voluntary exchange. And we have found that that system produces the greatest benefit for the largest number of people as…

>> You fundamentally misunderstand (or apparently disagree with) literally all of western philosophy and economic thought if you think that charging rents in a voluntary exchange is 'coercion'. On the one hand, to say that with any authority you have to be a, well, authority, on "western philosophy and economic thought" or at least to have read it. All of it. Have you? On the other hand, I'm not conversing with "all…

Loan sharking is not extortion, and neither is the renting of property. Let's not confuse our terms here. Extortion is unrelated to either of those activities.

The premise of your argument fundamentally rests on the idea that these landlords are choosing to charge "70% of their income to let them live at a shithole". But is that true?

Do the landlords have much of a choice in this matter? We can see with a simple thought experiment. What would happen if they were to lower their rents?

I'll tell you. They'd get more customers. Their vacancies would quickly be filled, because they'd be cheaper than the 'shithole' next door. And if they are already full, then all they'd need to do is keep building new shitholes until they can take all their competitors tenants too.

So, then. The obvious question: Why doesn't this happen? Why don't all these slumlords recognize this obvious opportunity for massive profit? Why don't you or I build a shithole of our own and charge only 60% of people's income?

And the answer is simple: Running shitholes costs 69% of the income of those monthly tenants. Charge any less and you're losing money. If you do not believe this to be the case, then by all means, start your own shithole and charge less. Let me know how that works out for you.

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

#456

Post by erikb »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #355
erikb wrote: post #290

It's really hard for me to start reading. Yes, there are other reasons for poverty, and yes people make money out of poor people. But that doesn't really mean that this reasoning replaces the reason that many poor people don't know how to handle money, family, friends well enough to keep their head above the water. And most of the examples they use seem to underline that as far as I can see. Poverty has a lot of face…

> But that doesn't really mean that this reasoning replaces the reason that many poor people don't know how to handle money, family, friends well enough to keep their head above the water. Do you have a citation for this opinion? Seems you're shifting focus from the concrete cause of poverty, lack of money/resources, to one of character. The article points out that others profit from this lack of resources and contri…

What I meant to say, sorry for my poor English, was that there isn't one single reason. Lack of resources is one reason, lack of Guanxi is another, lack of money management skills is another, lack of a mindest to improve oneself is one as well, etc. There are also indirect causes, like not going to the gym, therefore having poorer health, therefore perform worse and spend more money/time on medical treatments.

Not having a single dimensional problem means you can't resolve one dimension of the problem and expect the problem to go away. E.g. you give money to a poor guy, he will still be poor 5 years later, you give education to a poor guy, he will still be poor 5 years later (if he even accepts it in the first place).

Hard to read was the article because it assumes this multidimensional problem to be one dimensional and then argues that the source is not single-dimension A but single-dimension B. Both is based on an assumption I disagree on, despite all the details possibly being correct.

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

#458

Post by basch »

pc86 wrote: post #363
basch wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of giving money to poor people, who then have to spend it all on rent, why not provide affordable housing? You could probably make the same argument for prescription drugs and patent fees, no?

Are poor people spending an exorbitant percentage of their income on patent fees?

i meant drug patents and licensing

yes sick people spend a lot of money on patented drugs, or their medicare does.

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

#459

Post by unclebucknasty »

Natsu wrote: post #444
unclebucknasty wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it could be viewed as a provocative, open-ended question, inviting exploration by those more versed on Marx's work.

Stone Soup has to start with someone putting in at least a stone's worth.

The measure of a stone is clearly subjective.

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

#460

Post by Natsu »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #459
Natsu wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stone Soup has to start with someone putting in at least a stone's worth.

The measure of a stone is clearly subjective.

Indeed, which is why I was pointing at the rough consensus we have observed.
Post reply on HN