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

Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 228 posts

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#161

Post by ommunist »

nxzero wrote: post #152
jonknee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very rich are just average people; meaning there's a mix of types of people that are very rich; aka billion or more. Being very rich is by definition not being average. There are ~1,800 billionaires in the world and none are average.

I see, then what by definition is an average person?

Joe the Schmoe, 15-75K USD per year in the 1st world. Barak the Schmack, 10-100 usd per month in the 3rd world.

Surprisingly there is no more the 2nd world. since the USSR is no more and Ivan the Plan had no salary comparable to its monetary value, but a hell lot of social services he and his family used for free. Like free education for example.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#162

Post by jsprogrammer »

onetimeusename wrote: post #155
jsprogrammer wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shelter and land are not a service but a physical resource.

They are a physical resource but renting them is subject to contractual agreements between parties because what is actually being paid for is a _right_ to use land not the land itself. A renter must provide maintenance of a property for example. Another way to think of it is to say that a taxi provides a service temporarily, not the physical car itself. Renting is similar.

Yeah, selling a right to use land is not a service either.

It is literal trolling.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#163

Post by ommunist »

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #156
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is one of gross, immoral and unjustifiable inequality. Everything else is just semantics, conjecture and informed or misinformed opinion. I hope I live to see the day when the parasites of society meet their reckoning as I believe the idea of a more equal society coming about by reason as totally naive and foolhardy.

So... let's kill all the greedy Jews that charge interest for their money lending? /s No thanks. I think a few reforms are enough to make things fair - a UBI, capital gains treated as normal income, and political funding reform. We don't need any more of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...

No mate. Lets design the monetary system no one can have capital from it except the state, which is elected by the people to serve public interest, and is under control. Jews will become outlawed minority automagically, but not all of them, Kibbuzim are very welcome.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#164

Post by EliRivers »

jonknee wrote: post #138
EliRivers wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could a company ever sell stock to raise capital, if the people who bought that stock didn't have a functioning market to resell it on? It could be a lifetime or time-limited right to a dividend, with voting rights attached. This would prioritise sustainable profit generation with a long-term view, and eliminate the current malaise of seeking short-term spikes in share price.

... And it would further concentrate global wealth into the hands of a few (after you're no longer getting the dividends where do you think they'll go?).

Given that there are no owners, to the employees seems reasonable. With shares eliminated like this, we can have a such a system.

Perhaps through some kind of all employee profit sharing system that all the employees agree on. Alternatively, if there has to be ownership, ownership of the company can be split between all employees, and the profits shared amongst them accordingly.

I should divulge that by HN standards I am a screaming commie. I think unions are a good idea, and I think inheritance tax should be pretty much 100%. I'm not necessarily in favour of this employee-owners profit redistribution system, but it's an answer to the question of where profits should go if there are no rentier shareholders.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#165

Post by todd8 »

adwhit wrote: post #111
vixen99 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For nth time can we please stop talking about 'tax-avoiding' as if it's something we should not do? Every sensible individual so arranges their affairs so as to avoid tax as much as possible within the law. Governments of whatever stripe set the tax rules. We citizens obey. Government is always free to change the rules to suit its tax raising objectives. Tax evasion is of course illegal. As UK Judge Lord Clyde stated…

Can I lobby the government to change the law to lower my tax bill? No, I'm not wealthy enough. Top marginal income tax rates in the UK during the 60s were 98%.

The top marginal rates don't reflect what is actually paid in taxes. The tax laws are complex, very complex for high income people. Although the top marginal rates for individuals has come down dramatically from the highs of decades ago in the USA, the actual tax paid as a percentage of total income has gone up in the US for the top 10%.

The USA has a very progressive tax system. The top 20% of earners in the USA make 51% of total US income(2014) and pay 84% of total US income tax.

This data is pretty easy to find: OECD publications, see [1], WSJ see [2]

[1] http://darp.lse.ac.uk/resources/books/GrowingUnequal_OECD.pd...

[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-inco...

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#166

Post by onetimeusename »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #162
onetimeusename wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a physical resource but renting them is subject to contractual agreements between parties because what is actually being paid for is a _right_ to use land not the land itself. A renter must provide maintenance of a property for example. Another way to think of it is to say that a taxi provides a service temporarily, not the physical car itself. Renting is similar.

Yeah, selling a right to use land is not a service either. It is literal trolling.

If renting things is trolling then the world is full of trolls. If the solution to this is to confiscate resources for collective government to control, all that is being done is transferring the right to rent from one group of trolls to another. Then we have to start debating which group of trolls we would prefer to negotiate with. I already have my answer for that one.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#167

Post by aoeuasdf1 »

moultano wrote: post #147
ams6110 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mortgage paymenets are almost entirely interest in the early years. So in many cases there's little difference. Rental real estate works on leverage to a greater degree than is possible with stocks. Most banks won't make loans to invest in the stock market. They will make loans for investment property. So if you have $100,000 you can buy maybe 4 or 5 $100,000 rental properties, and have your tenants pay off the loans…

>Mortgage paymenets are almost entirely interest in the early years. So in many cases there's little difference. People generally don't buy houses in order to rent them. Usually houses are rented out when the owner is moving and decides to rent it out rather than sell, at which point the owner has a substantial amount of capital in the house.

And? Are they supposed to let people use the house for free? It seems like communists are willfully ignorant of the time value of money.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#168

Post by notahacker »

morgante wrote: post #129
notahacker wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better way of putting it would be that your investment might improve the economy only via side effects (e.g. the investor who you purchase the shares from is able to invest that money in a new business venture or buying actual goods, or a boost to the company's share price from your buying activity [if you're a massive fund owner] encourages new businesses to start up in that industry or makes it cheaper and easier…

The margins are where economic points must be argued though. Your same logic could be applied to consumers. Any one individual buying products does not keep the economy functioning. We could say they're "functionless consumers." Except if you extend that logic to all consumers, there is no economy. Similarly, any one secondary investor might not make or break the existence of functional capital markets. But if you ex…

Sure, all economic activity is measured at the margin, but all businesses depend on the marginal consumer pushing them into profitability to survive. On the other hand, most businesses function perfectly happily without any secondary market investors or any realistic prospect of selling on the secondary market in the foreseeable future. Absence of secondary market liquidity reduces the sources of investment available to growing businesses, but doesn't drive it to zero, and thus the real economy tends to be much less sensitive to the marginal dollar invested in blue chip stocks than the marginal dollar consumed.

Perhaps even more importantly, I also pointed out that (i) the marginal contribution of buying secondary market stocks to the growth of the economy is substantially less than their average 7% annual return for the passive investor and (ii) because the risk adjusted return of this economic rent is an attractive alternative to investing in creating new capital, it can in certain circumstances even have a negative effect on economic growth. Those were the real points Keynes was trying to make.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#169

Post by ajoy39 »

ams6110 wrote: post #143
Joeri wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained perceived inequality inevitably leads to revolution. We're nowhere near that point, but if trend lines continue and the middle class gets wiped out, it will happen. Democracy is supposed to prevent things from getting that bad, but we have seen that free elections…

The election is looking like it will come down to Trump v. Sanders. Both of whom were the LAST choice of the "elite" who supposedly are pulling all the puppet strings.

I don't know how you can look at the democratic primary an think it looks like Sanders will be the nominee.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#170

Post by jsprogrammer »

onetimeusename wrote: post #166
jsprogrammer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, selling a right to use land is not a service either. It is literal trolling.

If renting things is trolling then the world is full of trolls. If the solution to this is to confiscate resources for collective government to control, all that is being done is transferring the right to rent from one group of trolls to another. Then we have to start debating which group of trolls we would prefer to negotiate with. I already have my answer for that one.

I'm not sure all renting is trolling, but I do agree that the world is full of trolls.

I said nothing about confiscation, government control, or transferrence of (made up) rights.

Post reply on HN