To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors • Hacker News Board

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#491

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 12:55 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #208

RealityNow wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but how would we enforce a wealth tax? Seems like it'd be really easy for rich people to hide their money in assets. What about just printing money? Not ideal obviously, but there'd be no way to avoid the inflation "tax".

You can do a wealth tax by targeting the big ticket items. Rather than invade everyone's home with tax collectors to guesstimate how much every couch cushion you have is worth, you can hit probably 98% of wealth by just taxing the calculated value of owned land and buildings (which is already being appraised for property taxes in most states) and stocks, bonds, and options. So we already invade your privacy to apprai…

> You would also want to wealth tax companies for total global cash-on-hand assets they have as well. Those are also required to be public record already.

I'm not familiar with this being a requirement for foreign, private companies. (Reading between the lines, I'd expect a marked increase in investments in foreign, private companies under such a taxation scheme.)

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#492

Post by pasquinelli » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

trapperkeeper74 wrote: post #351

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we accept the need for people to be janitors, we must accept that becoming a janitor is not a "mistake", it's a useful thing that we all want to see happen for some people. We can't on the one hand say, that we need people to do this job and on the other hand say, "tough luck" to those that do it.

Robots aren't capable of doing everything people can do yet, but as they become more capable, what and how are displaced unskilled workers supposed to do if they can't get any job at all? Starve to death under a bridge? Not everyone can handle social or intellectual labor. I think this is why UBI is essential: prevent riots and meet people's basic needs so they're not pennyless and sleeping rough.

"Not everyone can handle social or intellectual labor."

then they can become janitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

but you're right, ubi is essential. not everyone can handle janitorial work. ;)

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#493

Post by gremlinsinc » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

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…

Am I understanding -- you're saying it's better for money to sit in an investment account, than spend it on goods/services locally -- thus applying it to local economies? Money doesn't do anyone but the holder any good sitting in an offshore account and even then it's really not doing them any good... do they really need it if it's not being used for something important/worthwhile..literally just collecting dust (and dividends?)....

The real fuel of the economy is money being spent on Apple products, walmart, amazon, --hell even yachts/airplanes (somebody has to build those)..

To fight income inequality, I think we need to tax at the point of investment.. --if you buy anything you're taxed on it..this includes investments/stocks/bonds/etc... just flat consumption taxes... give a UBI to offset the poorer folks...

But have a mandatory flat tax...do away w/ the IRS/income tax. If you're not a U.S. citizen and not getting UBI sorry--but you're sales tax will not be subsidized by UBI--and if you're here illegally/unpapered -- you're now a tax payer congrats we can stop trying to deport everyone since now we make more tax money off of them!

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#494

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #375

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…

I completely agree, but for totally different reasons. If a major function of government is to protect our property (land, savings, boats, cars, etc...), then it could be said the more property we have the more we benefit from government protection and the more we should pay. Another function of government is to facilitate trade. For this service, ALL transactions should be taxed (including payroll). If you look at t…

Transaction taxes drive vertical integration (as this reduces the number of bites at the apple along the supply chain). I don't think that's always a bad thing, but it does violate a principle of fairness that I hold, which is that substance matters over form.

If Starbucks owns coffee plantations, roasters, logistics, stores, the cup of coffee you get might be untaxed prior to you paying for it. If a competing coffee company performs the exact same steps, except uses third party farmers, logistics, roasters, and rents their storefront, that cup of coffee was taxed 5+ times before you bought it.

I don't see the societal benefit to encourage vertical aggregation like that.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#495

Post by oarla » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #366

jaggederest wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing janitorial work is not a mistake, but being a janitor for 40 years certainly is. It's not the core job, it's the fact that there's zero growth or mobility even possible that is the issue.

>It's not the core job, it's the fact that there's zero growth or mobility even possible that is the issue. Not everyone is a 'striver.' Some folks just want to pay their bills and enjoy what time they can with their family and friends.

As a society, if we figure out an economic system which doesn't lead to inflation, then all would benefit by not having to grow their net worth, and in turn, have a job that doesn't have any growth prospects.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#496

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:06 AM UTC

pcrh wrote: post #417

conanbatt wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence? > One would have to balance the "harm" caused to the children of wealthy people for not inheriting wealth (mostly when they are around 50-60 yr old themselves), with the harm caused to society at large. I wonder if we could think of other examples of how harming a minority of people can be good for society at large. But regardless of the moral standpoint of the remark you said, you also have to account…

My point is that there's no obvious harm implicit in denying people an inheritance. They did nothing to earn it. There's no inherent right to be bequeathed wealth; that this is evident is that it is nigh on impossible to sue one's parents (or their estate) for not willing their wealth to you (in the US; under Napoleonic law, there is a right to inherit). Many people spend inherited wealth frivolously. Business acumen…

In the other direction though, there is inherent right (IMO). I have the right, in my pursuit of happiness, to make allocations of my lawfully earned money to my current needs, to my retirement savings, to my children's clothing and education, and other such pursuits and accounts as I see fit.

There is harm to the donor to abolishing inheritance. I don't want to live in a world where "I farm this land, just as my father, his father, and his father for 5 generations has done." is not possible.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#497

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:10 AM UTC

pcrh wrote: post #196

WalterBright wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious where you think their money is.

I suspect a lot of it has been invested in overseas locations, including manufacturing operations globally. It may be that the money did indeed "trickle down", but not into the US.

I agree. If the US makes it even less attractive to invest capital here, do we think we'll get more or less capital investment and job creation here?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#498

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:11 AM UTC

ericd wrote: post #343

mathiasben wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

invested in siloed low risk fixed income vehicles ensuring that the funds don't circulate through the broader economy.

Low risk fixed income doesn't currently keep up with inflation.

Yes, it does, at least in the case of TIPS:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tips.asp

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#499

Post by foxhop » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC

This post hits close to home. I went through this when I worked full time at tech helpdesk / call center.

I was a contractor of a contractor of a contractor of the Navy.

Me Each step took a bit off the top, I made $17/hr no vacation, no health insurance, no sick time.

At one point my contractor (they signed my checks, a faceless shell) who I never met or communicated with called me at work and tried to reduce my pay. I felt so angry and upset. I ended up arguing that I would quit if they touched my pay.

I learned when I quit that:

Me ($17/hr) Its all about liability, health insurance is a liability, sick time is a liability, vacation is a liability, and the possibility of paying for layoffs is a liability.

Trickle down.

Also related,I was also working part time in retail where I learned that over 80% of the staff was part time to avoid paying health or vacation or sick time...

This is common practice in retail. These companies have huge workforces of part time people, they avoid giving people enough hours to be full time... Its terrible and needs to be fixed.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#500

Post by foxhop » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:19 AM UTC

pasquinelli wrote: post #492

trapperkeeper74 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots aren't capable of doing everything people can do yet, but as they become more capable, what and how are displaced unskilled workers supposed to do if they can't get any job at all? Starve to death under a bridge? Not everyone can handle social or intellectual labor. I think this is why UBI is essential: prevent riots and meet people's basic needs so they're not pennyless and sleeping rough.

"Not everyone can handle social or intellectual labor." then they can become janitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox but you're right, ubi is essential. not everyone can handle janitorial work. ;)

Its not just janitors, this happened to me in a highly technical call center.