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

To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#421

Post by jaggederest »

barrkel wrote: post #391
jaggederest wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even those 'non-striver' people would prefer to have growth over time, in their position, wage, and skills. Humans are not static - we like to learn and we get very frustrated when we can't improve over time.

Do you think everybody finds growth and meaning in their job? Many people find it in their family, in sport, in clubs, and work is just a wage.

I don't think everybody finds all of their growth and meaning in their job, but I do think that everyone would like to have at least some growth and meaning in their job. Even if all you're doing is getting better at the job itself, people value mastery and expertise.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#422

Post by fasquoika »

0xbear wrote: post #105
mathiasben wrote: post #36

The underlying cause of this whole issue is the changes in tax policy instated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, previously income was taxed at higher rates unless deductions were utilized which forced those earnings back into the economy creating jobs funding research, etc.. As it's become easier to retain more earnings there's little incentive not to optimize an entire corporation solely with the purpose of generating…

Says a person who doesn't (yet?) make $400k a year. This too shall pass, once you start making more money.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#423

Post by lancewiggs »

chrisco255 wrote: post #241
tnzn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone need more than 400k a year for himself in the first place though ?

So you can sell PayPal one day for $200 million and have the capital to build a space ship company and the first viable fully electric car manufacturer.

Sadly Musk is an outlier. Very few entrepreneurs have had his impact on the world.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#424

Post by conanbatt »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #385
conanbatt wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two arguments against a death tax: the inability to apply it, and the results of an effective one: In Argentina, the state collects a heft tax on property transfers when the propietor dies. So basically all property is donated from parents to children in-life. Poorer property owners that cant afford or dont know better, or people stricken with tragedy in an early death are likely the ones that pay the most of that ta…

Actually forcing people to spend their money before death would be really good for the economy (despite you picking illegal activities for the negative connotation.) And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption. Inherited wealth is anathema to meritocracies.

> Actually forcing people to spend their money before death would be really good for the economy (despite you picking illegal activities for the negative connotation.)

Well, this is were we clearly disagree. I am very certain that if i knew that i was going to die in 6 months, id be burning all my money into some kickass 6 months with "Burguers" and "Premium Tinder accounts". Consumption vs Investment is a core battle between Keynesian and Chicago School economics, so it depends on which you subscribe.

> meritocracies.

I actually do wonder who argues in favor of meritocracies. Sure as hell not liberal-economics.

"Get what we deserve? I hope to god we don't get what we deserve" - Milton Friedman.

> And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption.

This just compromises the original concept of equality of opportunity: if you do that, anyone below 50k will be in an unfavourable position relatively. So what you did with that limit is imposing something on a group, intended to be a minority that wouldnt be able to repeal such rule. The fact that these rules end up like this has been extensively exposed by people like MF.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#425

Post by flyinglizard »

dlp211 wrote: post #377
surfmike wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Non distortive" You can't imagine a way a tax like that would change people's behavior? People would give their money to their children before they die, or spend it all on themselves, and maybe some would work less because they were previously motivated by building up assets to give to their children.

I never understand why someone working less is considered a bad thing. If a person works less that leaves a vacuum for their services which will then be filled by another market actor.

On an individual level - correct. On a society level - not true anymore as you are reducing the effective size of the workforce.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#426

Post by chrisco255 »

RyanHamilton wrote: post #204
chrisco255 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Are you sure? The earth has finite resources. Wealth is a zero sum game. Even if you want to look at things like entertainment that can be reporduced cheaply, musicians and directors need fed, food is limited, therefore even films/music are limited.

The earth has finite resources. Let's go with that point for a moment. Do you think there were more resources available on planet earth 5000 years ago or today? The world population was several orders of magnitude less than today, natural resources had not yet been fully exploited, and yet, mankind was much, much poorer in terms of quality of life.

What happened in the meantime? We live in the most abundant age in history. Worldwide poverty is at an all-time low. Surely wealth is growing in absolute terms and it's not just the top 1% benefiting.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#427

Post by conanbatt »

esarbe wrote: post #341
conanbatt wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should stop thinking taxes are the solution to inequality. "Cutting all the high trees so the forest looks even".

This is a very interesting analogy. Because I've learned in ecology that from time to time a forest needs a good fire to allow for new growth.

Its a Marxist Forest.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#428

Post by dredmorbius »

whack wrote: post #305
choxi wrote: post #180

We should tax wealth, not income. [1] The majority of income the top 0.1% make is from investments and gets taxed as capital gains, only about 15% of their income is taxed as ordinary income. [2][3] We have an economic system where it's dramatically easier to make money the more money you already have. If you have $50M, you can park it in an index fund to get 4% returns and make $2M every year just off of your invest…

The real problem though isn't wealth inequality, it's income inequality. If someone has a billion dollars that's invested in various stocks, and never tries to withdraw that money, leave him alone. The day he decides to sell his investments and start buying private jets, that's the time to tax him on his income. The argument against a wealth tax, is that it penalizes savers, and rewards spenders. Which is not what we…

I disagree, strongly, with your premise.

First: wealth inequality is the result of persistent and pervasive income inequality.

Second: there are frequently individuals with very-highly-fluctuating incomes. Performing or creative individuals in particular -- actors, writers, filmmakers, musicians, athletes -- may have a few good, and many lean years. Taxing their good periods excessively would actually be counterproductive.

Taxing nonproductive wealth -- withheld or idle capital -- would put it to productive use. That's the fundamental principle of a land tax, as advocated by David Ricardo and Henry George. That concept fails to properly account for the withdrawal or degradation of natural capital, often at tremendous rates relative to the financial profit booked, and a case where natural capital is simply an off-books aspect of activities.

Ensuring that all citizens can meet the fundamental needs of life is crucial -- something Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Robert Malthus, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill each advocated for. "A man must live by his work" -- Smith.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#430

Post by oh_sigh »

esarbe wrote: post #321

What strikes me the most when looking at many of the comments here is the blatant disregard for human suffering that extreme inequality and the resulting poverty cause. The current economical status quo is accepted as a given and all the harm it causes is dismissed with the shrug of a shoulder. "It can't be helped, the poor sods should have made better life choices to avoid ending up as janitor" is the attitude by wh…

How does inequality in itself cause suffering?

If all super rich people were magically erased from the earth, would the poor have it any better?

Post reply on HN