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

571–580 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#571

Post by TheDongIsYou »

RobertoG wrote: post #356
kofejnik wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

basically, your argument is that you know better than the market. Let me assure you, this isn't so. Source: grew up in the USSR.

Markets are optimization processes, so, very powerful tools. Leaving the metric to optimize to the optimization process doesn't look a good idea, the same way it's not a good idea to leave the thermostat to choose the temperature. In my experience, the only people that think that the thermostat it's who should choose the temperature, it's the people that feels very comfortable with the current one and don't care abou…

I really like your analogy, but what did you mean by "anything is better"?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#572

Post by cakedoggie »

RealityNow wrote: post #187
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 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".

> Not ideal obviously, but there'd be no way to avoid the inflation "tax".

Buying property?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#573

Post by jiggunjer »

sokoloff wrote: post #523
whack wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wealth provides financial security to an even greater degree than high current income. Yes, but unless you're talking about a wealth tax in excess of 10%, this is not going to change. Someone with multiple millions of dollars in diversified investments will always be financially secure, unless we're considering drastic measures like a communist revolution. Regarding all the benefits of wealth you mentioned, note ho…

I don't seek to eliminate wealth; that's a terrible policy IMO. Moderating its growth and concentration only slightly is far less disruptive or fraught with unintended/unknowable consequences. An annual wealth tax of 10% would wipe out most wealth concentrations within 50 years. I think such a level is absurdly too high, though. Looking at Switzerland as an example, I think 0.25% to maybe as much as 1% range is far m…

In the Netherlands there is about 30% tax on financial returns and an additional 1.2% tax on assets (wealth) above a certain threshold.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#574

Post by cakedoggie »

aswanson wrote: post #118
acidburnNSA wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but also for multiple homes, fancy cars, world travel, etc. When I worked at a hardware store we had a brochure we could order in a gold-plated Ducane grill for $4 million. That recent graph showing the top 1% having a 6% wealth growth rate is wholly unsustainable for any society. So there's something to be said for trying to level it off.

What makes you think the government would be better at job creation through confiscating more capital than individuals who created the wealth redistributing it through investments and purchases? Every summer home or car bought puts people to work as well, its not like the money disappears.

Because we know what the alternative is, it is happening now.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#575

Post by cakedoggie »

chrisco255 wrote: post #248
adwhit wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like if you had 40 cars and the government said they were going to charge you 90% tax for your 41st. In other words, nothing like that.

No, more like we are going to tax you 90% on everything from that point on. 90% is insane, folks. We don't have the same economy or tax laws today that they had in the 50s. You can't ignore what's changed.

> 90% is insane, folks.

Why? Why is that the magic number that is insane??

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#576

Post by dsacco »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #467
glhaynes wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a strange complaint when janitorial positions (which aren’t often held by college educated white guys) are under discussion. Presuming we want people to have good lives who aren’t able or inclined to do jobs requiring much higher intellectual demands than janitorial ones (and I certainly do want us to presume that!), we need to figure out how to in the short term allow people doing those jobs to have good lives…

I mean that's the point. The difference between someone that ends up as a janitor and someone that ends up as a software engineer has a lot more to do with their parent's money and the color of their skin than any variation in intelligence. Pretending differently just leads you to the comforting arms of the "just world fallacy".

I think your position needs to be defended just as much as the position you're arguing against, and right now you're not doing a convincing job of defending it.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#577

Post by hacking_again »

cakedoggie wrote: post #575
chrisco255 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, more like we are going to tax you 90% on everything from that point on. 90% is insane, folks. We don't have the same economy or tax laws today that they had in the 50s. You can't ignore what's changed.

> 90% is insane, folks. Why? Why is that the magic number that is insane??

even clinically, sane vs. insane is a judgment call

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#578

Post by jaggederest »

mikeash wrote: post #557
jaggederest wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and I'm not sure why people in this thread are misunderstanding it.

I thought you were saying that growth or mobility was inherently impossible for a janitor. Maybe because you describe being a janitor for 40 years as a mistake rather than as a failure of the system. Anyway, if you meant it the other way around then consider my reply some extra support for the idea.

I was just using the parent comment verbiage. Perhaps I should have quoted it.

I meant a mistake by society, i.e. it's a mistake to put people in a dead-end job, functionally ever.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#579

Post by jaggederest »

jiggunjer wrote: post #565
philjohn wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, the Janitor in this piece can't afford to take a holiday, so is it a stretch to assume she doesn't have much free time either?!?

Maybe the fact that she's a single mom with 4 kids is a factor too. I think a janitor with a single dependent would have a more acceptable standard of living.

Are you making a modest proposal that people should go from four kids to one, post facto?

I think everyone deserves to be able to have vacation time, especially single parents.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#580

Post by spoonie »

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…

Tax land not wealth! You can't move or hide land, unlike other assets.
Post reply on HN