Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#301

Post by ergothus » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #300

ergothus wrote: post #33

My father and I have somewhat productive political conversations: He's fiscally conservative, I tend towards the liberal side of the scale. Drilling in to find what we really disagree about, it seems to boil down to two concepts: (1) I view success as a matter of luck that your effort can make better or worse. He views effort as the single most important deciding factor in success in life (2) I'm willing to tolerate…

BTW, might want to get your dad that book the interview was about (Robert Frank: "Success and Luck"). It's a good read, and you'll have something more to discuss :-)

I got a Kindle copy for myself...if I like it I will definitely order him a copy.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#302

Post by FabHK » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #113

kyleschiller wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current system, yes, properly implemented, UBI would end poverty in America while still allowing for massive inequality. It sets a floor, not a ceiling.

I'm not sure that inequality is necessarily the thing to be fixed. I suspect that when most people talk about inequality, what they mean is, "a few people are doing really good and a lot of people are doing really bad". If you can lessen or remove the "doing really bad" part, whether through UBI or some other means (progressive taxation to fund other programs, whatever your ideology prefers), then statements of inequ…

Poverty is a problem, obviously, but inequality is a problem in itself.

* inequality subverts the democratic process

* inequality subverts the rule of law

* I'd argue it even threatens human dignity

* in economics, my utility function typically only takes my well-being/wealth/consumption/circumstances into consideration, not my neighbour's. That's a simplification, so that one can do economics. It's pragmatic and expedient - it is certainly neither descriptive nor normative. Although there is a tendency in libertarian/"economism" circles (google James Kwak "economism" if you don't know what it means) and even others (skeptic Michael Shermer, for example) to consider it the rational thing to do.

I don't see why. Yes, if I get 10$ more, and all my neighbours get $10000 more, I will be cranky and unsatisfied, utility function bla bla my ass.

Inequality also depresses human happiness.

TL;DR: excessive inequality jeopardizes democracy, the rule of law, human dignity, peace, and happiness.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#303

Post by Karlozkiller » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

fnl wrote: post #244

Karlozkiller wrote: post #215

So if I believe in luck I will be more inclined to pay high taxes? I don't think that's how it works. I mean of course people with money who realise not everyone who is poor is poor because they're lazy bums will be more inclined to help a "poor person" than they would if they believed all poor are lazy bums. But does that mean they will accept high taxation? Say I am rich and narcissistic, I believe I'm better than…

If you can't see luck as deciding factor in being extremely rich or poor, your world-view will dictate that hard work and discipline can get you out of poverty. Therefore, there is no need to help other people and the only tax you need to pay is the minimum needed to keep the nation state you depend on afloat. If you see luck as a factor, then you either understand that those with good luck need to give a bit more (=…

No.This was exactly the response I was expecting and giving more does not equal pay more taxes.

Putting an equal sign between helping your peers/being altruistic and paying taxes is the logical flaw in my opinion.

I argue that paying taxes is not the most effective way of helping others and therefore whether I believe becoming rich is a matter of luck or not becomes irrelevant in regard to whether rich should pay high taxes or not.

Though of course not everyone will have my views on that matter and therefore a subset, however big, will follow your line of thought instead, meaning the number of happy-to-pay-tax people would increase if their perception of luck changed as proposed in the article.

However what I'm arguing against is that A >necessarily< leads to B. As it does depend on other factors too.