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

How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#31

Post by IanDrake »

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

...

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Now replace the socialist, trade unionist, and Jews from this famous quote and insert your income percentile to see what's going on here.

I said this during the occupy movement. It's not the 1%, not the 2%, not the 10%, not even the 20% that need to be worried. For they will not satisfy those who have not achieved what they desire.

What people who promote class warfare desire is financial results without work or risk because that's how they perceive those with money attained it.

Expect to see articles about the top 25% and 30% next.

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#32

Post by pokemongoaway »

jmaygarden wrote: post #27

If you define a class by the top 20% of income earners, then you can never have a "classless" society. You'll always have a mathematically top 20%. That's an entirely different idea than say nobles versus peasants or racial apartheid. I liked much of what the author had to say, but claiming that America has a more rigid class structure than a nation with a hereditary monarchy seems like a stretch.

Correct... This classification system is not serving the "other" 80%!

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#33

Post by tnzn »

jmaygarden wrote: post #27

If you define a class by the top 20% of income earners, then you can never have a "classless" society. You'll always have a mathematically top 20%. That's an entirely different idea than say nobles versus peasants or racial apartheid. I liked much of what the author had to say, but claiming that America has a more rigid class structure than a nation with a hereditary monarchy seems like a stretch.

Just wanted to point out that "You'll always have a mathematically top 20%" is only if we stay in the same system, which is kind of arguing in a circle... Plus if there's a huge gap between the bottom 10 and top 90%, this still means there's a class system of some sorts.

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#34

Post by havella »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #23
havella wrote: post #8

For households without kids it wouldn't be egregious to have the ability to make 529 size contributions to Roth-IRA.

"529 type contributions to Roth-IRA" -- They do, it's called a Roth IRA

mmm perhaps lack of clarity on my comment. I was referring to the size of the maximum contribution. $14000 for 529 vs 5500 for ROTH and there's an income limit for ROTH. ~190k

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#35

Post by aaron-lebo »

jacob019 wrote: post #22
aaron-lebo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may (or may not) be contradicting himself, but the argument isn't wrong. By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk aversion and greed), and they end up either voluntarily transferring wealth or it's taken from them by an angry underclass. You can see why (after the fact), they would've preferred the former. Posted this yesterday but Acemoglu and Robinson's Economic Origins…

While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should try to devise systems that prevent power from centralizing in the first place.

Wealth has been redistributed via various government means for centuries. Did the income tax help society or destroy it? What would this discussion look like without it?

There are ways of gradually doing it that don't involve mass upheaval.

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#36

Post by tnzn »

jacob019 wrote: post #22
aaron-lebo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may (or may not) be contradicting himself, but the argument isn't wrong. By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk aversion and greed), and they end up either voluntarily transferring wealth or it's taken from them by an angry underclass. You can see why (after the fact), they would've preferred the former. Posted this yesterday but Acemoglu and Robinson's Economic Origins…

While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should try to devise systems that prevent power from centralizing in the first place.

Is that because the government redistributes the wealth, or because the powerful ones make it so that redistributing the wealth doesn't work ? (ie tax evasion)

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#37

Post by KozmoNau7 »

IanDrake wrote: post #31

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. ... Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Now replace the socialist, trade unionist, and Jews from this famous quote and insert your income percentile to see what's going on here. I said this during the occupy movement. It's not the 1%, not the 2%, not the 10%, not even the 20% that need to be worr…

"What people who promote class warfare desire is financial results without work or risk because that's how they perceive those with money attained it."

Which also happens to be the truth.

Sure, hard work and risk were involved, but generally not on the part of the people who ended up with the money.

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#38

Post by jamescostian »

jacob019 wrote: post #22
aaron-lebo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may (or may not) be contradicting himself, but the argument isn't wrong. By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk aversion and greed), and they end up either voluntarily transferring wealth or it's taken from them by an angry underclass. You can see why (after the fact), they would've preferred the former. Posted this yesterday but Acemoglu and Robinson's Economic Origins…

While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should try to devise systems that prevent power from centralizing in the first place.

> efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it

Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the goal here to destroy a lot of wealth? Wealth is a relative term - someone with $1B is not rich because 1B is an inherently big number, they are rich because $1B is orders of magnitudes greater than what most people will make in their lifetimes. Making people all have about the same in the bank other would destroy wealth.

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#39

Post by tnzn »

jacquesm wrote: post #15
svantana wrote: post #6

It is only natural that the people in possession of resources are reluctant to share them; that is also the case in most countries, in my experience. The weird thing about the U.S. is that so many below-median-income folks are right-wing -- the very ones that would benefit from increased wealth distribution. I guess part of the explanation comes from the mirage that is The American Dream. In some sense a lot of us To…

> I guess part of the explanation comes from the mirage that is The American Dream No, it's much simpler than that: blacks, gays, guns, abortion.

It's most probably a mix of both.

Re: How America's Top 20 Percent Perpetuates Inequality

#40

Post by rubyfan »

rbcgerard wrote: post #29

I always get a little annoyed when people talk about benefits of some tax deduction accruing to the "rich". It's not that it's technically wrong but, but rather a sort of a truism - if you can take the max deduction and have a high marginal tax rate you will accrue more benefit (whether it's 529 or mortgage interest deduction). That being said, you also are likely to pay more taxes both nominally and proportionally i…

Also specific to the 529 issue, many of these families will go on to pay more out of pocket tuitions than the bottom 80% who benefit from all sorts of government money and aid.
Post reply on HN