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

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 368 posts

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#111

Post by collyw »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #63

Worldwide, if you make over $32k per year you’re 1%. I suggest folks think carefully about this fact before suggesting hanging the rich or anything else Marxist-Leninist. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

Top 1% of earning, not necessarily top 1% of wealth.

I remember checking my moderately above average European income on a site that showed this. I think I was in or close to the top 1% of earners. But not being on the property ladder I think I was closer to top 6% by wealth. (It was a while ago so my numbers may be a bit out, but I hope you get the idea).

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#112

Post by danmaz74 »

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

Income/wealth inequality always happens and probably always will, but it doesn't NEED to be so big and become bigger and bigger as it's doing since Reagan started the movement to tax the rich less and less.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#113

Post by expertentipp »

cstross wrote: post #11
orf wrote: post #2

So when do we get trickled down on exactly?

Trickle-down theory is accurate! It's just not necessarily money that's raining down on our heads. Less snarkily: Piketty observes that reinvested capital accumulates at a faster rate than labour. Also, we have no global taxation system, so capital flows through the cracks into regimes with the lowest tax rate -- meanwhile, labour is pinned down by strict laws restricting immigration, and mostly can't go where wages…

> The system itself is broken, and the people who run it have forgotten the lesson of history that people with no stake in a system eventually turn to violence when threatened with starvation.

The people who run it are aware that they can, with impunity, make others starve when necessary (see multiple famines in the European history). Such potential power is extremely exciting for some.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#114

Post by me_love_rust »

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

> is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions.

That line of thought will lead you to run in with the ultimate wealth distribution tools the bullet, the bomb and the rifle

I know this is true because I'm decently middle class and want the fuckers to burn myself right now, I can't imagine what people truly being fucked by these monsters feel

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#115

Post by ghouse »

starchild_3001 wrote: post #100
ghouse wrote: post #55

In the US, a large part of this trend is due to the tax code. Examples: 1) in real estate, a "1031 transfer" allows the tax payer to not pay tax on the gain from the sale of property so long as they purchase another piece of real estate. 2) Capital Gains tax rates are lower than Ordinary Income tax rates. So, the tax you pay on income derived from wealth is lower than the tax rate you pay on income derived from emplo…

Re: 1) it only applies to your primary residence. It's by no means the way top %1 in wealth maintain or create their income. [Edit: I thought it does. But I'm not so sure anymore. Better scratch this comment] 2) I'd suggest examining double taxation. Corporations already pay taxes. It's unclear why an investor should pay additional taxes too on top of it, for the same profit.

1) That's inaccurate. From my own direct experience, it applies to any investment property. 2) You're making an argument to not tax dividends, not capital gains.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#116

Post by collyw »

austenallred wrote: post #32

I wonder what percentage of Hacker News readers are in the international 1%. That’s about $32,000/yr salary. My guess is it’s much greater than 50%.

We should clarify if we are talking about top 1% of earnings, or top 1% of wealth. The housing boom in the UK in the last 15 years has made wealth very related to age.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#117

Post by awat »

wirut wrote: post #91
awat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it’s really a dislike based on percieved freedom. Are you really anymore free in a capitalist system if the majority of the population can only afford the cheapest {insert item} at Wal-Mart? The pending existential crisis of capitalism in the US is what good is choice if only a select few hold the ability to exercise it? Edit: spelling

Nope, people dislike communism because every time it has been tried, a significant portion of the population ends up dead or in slave labor camps. Sorry, but I'll take the freedom to buy endless crap, have an virtually unlimited food supply, and have the freedom to criticize the government without ending up in the Gulag.

I’m defintely not making an argument for communism. I’m simply trying to make the point that there is a stark opposition to anything but pure capitalism in the US and a lot of the position seems to be based on a percieved freedom level. Buying endless crap and having unlimited food supply is a logical reason to favor capitalism. Opposing all other market forms (either holistically or partially applied) without consideration because it violates a perceived real or unreal freedom level doesn’t make sense to me.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#118

Post by thinkloop »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #97
thinkloop wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism where people are forced by others and not the laws of nature?

There's a difference between someone physically constraining you so that you can't eat and from not having enough money to eat, but that doesn't mean the one is free in the latter case. Indeed, presumably one does not want to be physically stopped from eating because one wants to eat - i.e. substantively we want to be free to do things, and can only do things if society grants us the means to. What are 'the laws of n…

The laws of nature are simply that life is inherently a struggle. Imagine being born on a planet with no-one else, if you don't gather food and build shelter you will die. You are constantly on a path of poverty and death unless you fight against it. Since humans are social creatures that love each other we don't like letting that happen to others even if they can't create enough value to sustain themselves. But once society gets big and anonymous enough, that requires force (taking something from someone else that provides greater net happiness for them both).

For the record I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force and reduces freedom.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#119

Post by mentos »

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

I think the biggest mistake people make when counting this wealth is that if it is hoarded and never spent then it might as well not exist and should be viewed as anti-inflationary.

What if all the billionaires in the world decided 'let me just hit delete on all of the zeroes in my bank account' what affect would that have on the rest of the world?

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#120

Post by enugu »

return0 wrote: post #108
Animats wrote: post #15

Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…

Communism was a historic aberration. Trying to make an economy without market is stupid, as you throw away a valuable tool known since prehistoric times. Markets are not the problem, but they are not enough.

Exactly, this whole conversation gets sidetracked by assuming that communism is the primary alternative to the current system.
Post reply on HN