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

221–228 of 228 posts

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

#221

Post by zanny »

brador wrote: post #193
zanny wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have worded it better, but it is not just strictly biological children. There is an entire cultural social class above what most call "rich" that encompasses the heads of major universities, companies, investment firms, and governments that represent a fraction of one percent of the population but have consistently controlled the vast majority of capital and have gradually increased their ownership stake sin…

Would a yearly single flat tax of XX% of total net worth for every human in the world solve the problem? Essentially a literal redistribution of wealth, but could it work?

Flat taxes do not work, because the established system is one where there are two classes globally - the consumer class, that is productive to consume resources with the fruits of their labor, and the capital class, that owns the means of production and use the wealth that creates them to make more wealth.

If you take 30% of everyones income, the working class loses standard of living and upward mobility while the capitalist class reevaluates their investments to insure that, despite a 30% annual expense, you are growing your wealth regardless.

It is also a dangerous precedent. If your intention to tax sufficiently high to start peeling back the democracy distorting wealth inequality, the wealthy will just flee you, and you must remember - as they exist today, they are the arbiters of society, and dictate who lives and dies through economics. If anyone outright attacked them like that, you should expect a war in return.

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

#222

Post by wtbob »

> If you buy some shares in M&S or BP on the stock market, the money you pay goes to the previous owner, not the company. You are what Keynes called a ‘functionless investor.’ When such so-called ‘investments’ pay off they extract wealth from the economy without creating anything in return.

Ummm, no: when you pay off the previous owner you reimburse him for the risk he took. What's this guy's solution — not allowing folks to sell their assets? That seems a bit extreme, and liable to destroy the economy utterly.

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

#223

Post by wtbob »

ommunist wrote: post #151
golergka wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one thing this communist logic doesn't take into account: risk. Ownership and risk are inherently tied to one another. Thinking only about scenarios where this risk already passed and then calling owners "parasites" is survivorship bias in the purest form.

Communists took ultimate risk when they risked their lives overthrowing capitalism as a system, being it Russia in 1917 or Cuba in 1953.

Communists slew far more anti-Communists than anti-Communists slew Communists, by orders of magnitude. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho: all killed far more after they took power than were killed by those they overthrew.

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

#224

Post by narag »

y4mi wrote: post #137
narag wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope we can reign in the rentiering, tax-avoiding, propaganda-publishing rich and reclaim democracy before Something Bad happens. Frankly, I don't believe anything really bad happens to very rich people. A nice perk of becoming super-rich.

you must've missed your history lessons then. the mobs always went for them first and killed their hole families. it hasn't happend in over 100 years though and its likely that it won't happen again, as the rich can buy automated defense systems nowadays that could slaughter any amount of revolutionaries that come knocking on their doors

When monarchy was hereditary, there was an obvious target. Now most rich persons are unknown out of a small circle. And they will take a jet to Switzerland or the Tropics.

The power is outsourced to politicians.

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

#225

Post by brador »

zanny wrote: post #221
brador wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a yearly single flat tax of XX% of total net worth for every human in the world solve the problem? Essentially a literal redistribution of wealth, but could it work?

Flat taxes do not work, because the established system is one where there are two classes globally - the consumer class, that is productive to consume resources with the fruits of their labor, and the capital class, that owns the means of production and use the wealth that creates them to make more wealth. If you take 30% of everyones income, the working class loses standard of living and upward mobility while the ca…

That's why I said a global yearly total flat tax on total net worth, not income.

If that could be made to work and the pieces set up to work, would it be a solution?

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

#226

Post by nazgob »

ommunist wrote: post #158
nazgob wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why its not USSR to blame? USSR allied with Nazi Germany and attacked many free nations. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. Everywhere leaving destruction, death and misery. War war followed with bloody enforcement of communism in occupied nations.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania happily united with USSR the way Austria was united with Germany. And since my father was born in exact place and time you are referring to, I can make you sure that my family archive contains enough proof of the view that is quite contrary to your rhetorical exercise. In just 10 years after WW2 ended, Latvia for example, became from being allotments of Brita…

Soviet apologist on HN, I regret answering to you. Bye.

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

#227

Post by hueving »

EliRivers wrote: post #220
hueving wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Given that there are no owners, to the employees seems reasonable By what standard? Does a new employee get the same percentage as every other employee? If so, how is that fair when certain positions objectively have much more impact on the success of the company? If not, who decides allocations for new employees and who the allocations should come from? Also, who is going to put up the capital in the first place to…

These are all questions that have answers. Such companies do already exist in Western liberal democracies operating roughly capitalist economies. You can find these answers yourself if you choose to. You can probably even think of some ideas yourself. We don't have to accept the economic system we are told is the one true way. We've seen where treating the economy like a religion leads.

If there were reasonable answers, you would have provided them. The reason you haven't is because they generally aren't sustainable and do not work. If they did, that model would quickly take over because employees would exclusively seek out companies where they are granted ownership without any capital commitment.

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

#228

Post by EliRivers »

hueving wrote: post #227
EliRivers wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all questions that have answers. Such companies do already exist in Western liberal democracies operating roughly capitalist economies. You can find these answers yourself if you choose to. You can probably even think of some ideas yourself. We don't have to accept the economic system we are told is the one true way. We've seen where treating the economy like a religion leads.

If there were reasonable answers, you would have provided them. The reason you haven't is because they generally aren't sustainable and do not work. If they did, that model would quickly take over because employees would exclusively seek out companies where they are granted ownership without any capital commitment.

Companies do exist that are owned by their employees, and yet people do also get jobs at other companies that are not owned by the employees.

These facts would appear to contradict your statements.

Post reply on HN