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

World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 284 posts

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#191

Post by valuearb »

volgo wrote: post #179
valuearb wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the U.S., your $120,000 of capital gains/dividends isn't taxed at a high rate to you, but is taxed at a high rate. First the company has to earn a profit, and out of that profit pay state and federal income taxes (35% + state). Then it pays whats left to you, where you pay your 15-20%, making the total tax rate usually over 50%. Given that taxes on corporate income is a direct tax in investment, it's counterproduc…

That argument doesn’t make sense because when you receive a salary, the same taxation is passed through the company as well. Companies have to pay corporate taxes before they pay you too. The only difference is the “last mile” tax of when you receive the money from the company. For capital gains it’s 15% federal, for salary it’s 28%

Nope, they don't. Employees pay is an expense to the company, and always deducted pre-tax.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#192

Post by oblio »

cornholio wrote: post #118
aalleavitch wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wages have stagnated and the poor are not seeing an equivalent increase in their wealth. Moreover, while the jobs numbers are very high 94% of all jobs added in the last decade have been temp/contract work/self-employment. https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wages-arent-growing-in-america https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi... https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created...

On the other hand, the wages of 700 million Chinese workers has trebled in the last decade.

And humanity, as a whole, will probably reap a ton of long term benefits from it. I doubt there's much solace in this thought for someone being fired because of it, though.

(Personally I don't mind a bit of hardship if it helps everyone, but I understand not everyone can be frugal or that some people can be just plain unlucky)

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#193

Post by coliveira »

hueving wrote: post #158
coliveira wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indication you're searching for is called wealth inequality. It is a measure of how much more money the richest people have compared to the rest of the population, and it has increased significantly over the years: http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ There is an economist called Thomas Piketty who has made his name by studying and measuring inequality over the years. Read his book and you w…

Can you explain why wealth inequality is bad? If me and the rest the million other people in my city have $100,000, some billionaire in a city somewhere else making another 100 million doesn't really have any impact on me directly. Yet it increases this inequality metric and I'm supposed to be outraged. If the billionaire was using this position to corner the real estate market I'm trying to buy a house in, then I mi…

The main problem is in political representation. In a democracy, everyone should count as one vote. The natural desire of the population is to have better education and health care, for example, that can lift the standing of the whole society. When a small minority has a disproportionate amount of wealth, they can relatively easily bend politics to their personal wishes. In the US this presents itself in politicians who vote for their wealthy donors to receive tax breaks, the rise of chartered schools, and the fight against public health care.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#194

Post by oblio »

valuearb wrote: post #190
oblio wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every Musk how many Kochs are out there?

Because of the Koch family everyone's standard of living increased significantly over the last 100 years because gasoline was produced more cheaply. What the Koch's spent their money on is an entirely different issue.

Because of the whole family or because of Fred C. Koch? Big difference ;)

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#195

Post by aalleavitch »

oblio wrote: post #192
cornholio wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the wages of 700 million Chinese workers has trebled in the last decade.

And humanity, as a whole, will probably reap a ton of long term benefits from it. I doubt there's much solace in this thought for someone being fired because of it, though. (Personally I don't mind a bit of hardship if it helps everyone, but I understand not everyone can be frugal or that some people can be just plain unlucky)

It's also a lot harder to swallow when you're hungry and someone out there is making enough to feed 100 of you.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#196

Post by traek »

andrewjl wrote: post #164
knolan wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents had paid off their mortgage when they were my age. My father was self employed and my mother a housewife. I’m on a reasonably good salary but banks won’t loan us enough to buy an averaged sized family home even though we have a reasonable deposit. My partner would have to be on an equally sized salary but her teaching job pays very little. Sure we have some nicer gadgets and personal comforts but the cost…

The problem isn't necessarily capitalism, but market failure in housing. Economic laws dictate that anyone who wants to purchase a house should be able find one that they can afford (assuming good credit history, etc), instead through zoning and other measures regions like the Bay Area and others choose not to build.

> Economic laws dictate that anyone who wants to purchase a house should be able find one that they can afford

Which economic laws dictate that?

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#197

Post by maxsilver »

jrs95 wrote: post #151
volgo wrote: post #126

As capitalism matures, it's clear to anyone with a thread of financial literacy that most wealth is created through capital gains rather than salary. We're approaching a state (at least in developed countries) where productivity is so high, that you can literally park your money in 500 of the biggest businesses and you're almost guaranteed a 7% annual return (if you hold stocks for the long term). Using the commonly…

Middle class people can take advantage of those investment returns as well. A more interesting question to me is “Why aren’t they?”. A typical middle class person can still achieve significant upward mobility for their children, and yet they often choose not to. Is part of the problem with student debt not just that many parents of the last generation or two wasted their money rather than saving it to put their child…

> Middle class people can take advantage of those investment returns as well.

How exactly do you define "middle class"?

Because by the popular definition of middle class, these folks can not take any meaningful advantage of any sort of investment returns.

Generally speaking, middle class people barely have enough money to house and educate themselves (they must take out large barely-sustainable loans to cover either/both of those, at high risk to themselves). The wealthier of the middle class might have a basic retirement account of some sort, which might barely cover basic food+shelter+medical for their own person.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#198

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

Danihan wrote: post #154
adventured wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's clear to anyone with a thread of financial literacy That's argument from intimidation and not a valid form of argumentation. > In effect, late stage capitalism becomes the anti-thesis of the spirit of capitalism - devoid of competition, free innovation, and upward mobility Fortunately the world isn't in late stage Capitalism, because there is no such thing. As one obvious example, China has only begun to emerg…

- "Innovate or die" Thanks for this post, pretty amazing to read through these.

You should try another piece of rather good poetry:

"Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.

[...]

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#199

Post by ABCLAW »

manigandham wrote: post #168
volgo wrote: post #126

As capitalism matures, it's clear to anyone with a thread of financial literacy that most wealth is created through capital gains rather than salary. We're approaching a state (at least in developed countries) where productivity is so high, that you can literally park your money in 500 of the biggest businesses and you're almost guaranteed a 7% annual return (if you hold stocks for the long term). Using the commonly…

How does someone having wealth stop anyone else from acquiring theirs? You may start out with less but there's nothing stopping you. Also all those capital investments are helping the companies and funds they're invested in, one of which could be your very own employer/startup/pension fund, etc.

Wealth is, abstracted, control over resources.

How does someone else controlling resources prevent you from obtaining resources?

Well, because they control the resources.

The entire concept of rivalry in economics is about this. Only in the case of resource that are not rivalrous does pre-existing wealth become a non-factor.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#200

Post by jknoepfler »

knolan wrote: post #156
Danihan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much of what you said, yet I just don't see it as all that bad of a situation. I still think there is a lot of upward mobility even in that scenario -- the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper. And there is still opportunity for risk takers to start their own compan…

My parents had paid off their mortgage when they were my age. My father was self employed and my mother a housewife. I’m on a reasonably good salary but banks won’t loan us enough to buy an averaged sized family home even though we have a reasonable deposit. My partner would have to be on an equally sized salary but her teaching job pays very little. Sure we have some nicer gadgets and personal comforts but the cost…

I suspect a lot of these comparisons are not apples to apples.

Declining wages are real, but populations are declining in the affordable but undesirable towns where property is cheap that my parents and grandparents bought into.

My mother's parents bought their first home in Minot, North Dakota and saved up for a tiny home in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was an engineer who put himself through school while living in a boxcar in Montana in the depression. She was a housewife. They scraped and saved, and did well for themselves despite hard circumstances (the depression, world war II, etc.)

My parents bought a starter home in Bloomington, MN. He was an attorney, she stayed at home. They moved to a wealthier suburb to find better schools when they could afford to.

Both sets saved aggressively, didn't go out, didn't drink, maintained cars themselves, didn't take elaborate vac actions, and lived in relatively low cost areas.

Me? I live in a booming tech hub. Prices aren't even comparable. I spend on food and wine and travel. I have a fancy phone I don't need and take my car to a mechanic for standard maintenance. I "can't afford a home" because I don't want to repeat the decisions of my elders. I could certainly buy a home in Minot with cash, and could get a mortgage in Bloomington without too much effort, but I don't prefer those options to what I'm doing now.

That's speaking for me only, but I'm pretty skeptical that prudent living doesn't have similar or better payouts than it did fifty years ago.

Post reply on HN