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

321–330 of 368 posts

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

#321

Post by KozmoNau7 »

iguy wrote: post #278
noobermin wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sort of agreeing with you? My point is leftists say communism and mean something different (some leftists don't even consider Stalin a proper communist, Trotskyists for example) but people outside use it as a blanket term for the left. Even some in the US call conservative democrats "communists". Regardless, it's just a word. My point is people commenting don't know the difference anyway, it's best to just read t…

Sorry I guess I was replying also to GP "That's not communism, though", who seems to be insisting that "communism" means only the mythical utopia.

Communism in its real original meaning, yes. Not the perversions of later tyrannical dictatorships.

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

#322

Post by ericd »

mikeash wrote: post #309
ericd wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm reading your source wrong, it looks like it says that the top 10% pays 50% of taxes? I feel like I should make it clear that my personal opinion is that top marginal tax rates should be much higher than they are, especially on capital gains, but I don't think it's fair to say that the working class is paying all the taxes, given the breakdown.

Almost 50%. Add in the next 10% and you get a majority, but not a huge one.

49.8%, I think we can call that 50%.

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

#323

Post by gaius »

avar wrote: post #83
gaius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are reading this site in a Western country you are almost certainly in the global 1%. Household income of $30k if I remember correctly.

This $30k number is frequently cited and seems to always lead back to http://www.globalrichlist.com It's ~$30k after tax (net income). So the actual salary number is going to be higher. It's also misleading because most rich people are rich because of wealth, not income. You need ~$770k in assets to be in the global 1%.

But that is misleading too!

In the UK there are millions (probably) of people who bought their houses before the recent property boom, who theoretically have an asset worth at least that much on paper. But since all other property in the country is similarly inflated, the wealth is not real in any meaningful sense. It’s just a number.

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

#324

Post by ric2b »

v_lisivka wrote: post #297
noobermin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just talking about Marxian definitions, it's simple: Owns means of production: bourgeousie Works without owning means of production: proletariat

What about prostitutes?

Or Uber drivers...

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

#325

Post by iguy »

letslightafire wrote: post #317
iguy wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

poor are not educated enough about reproduction to prevent childbirth Many people say this. But it's worth knowing that, historically, lots of societies firmly limited reproduction when they were as poor as (say) most of Africa is now. The methods varied.

I can only think of China as an example of purposely limiting reproduction, what others are there?

Right, 20th century China is the example of government limiting reproduction which springs to mind.

What I had in mind was people limiting their own. In the west the main mechanism was delayed marriage (i.e. saving up a socially approved amount of money first) which kept us well away from starvation 500 years ago. In china/japan I believe the pattern was more infanticide (in the same period) but know less about this.

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

#326

Post by iguy »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #321
iguy wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I guess I was replying also to GP "That's not communism, though", who seems to be insisting that "communism" means only the mythical utopia.

Communism in its real original meaning, yes. Not the perversions of later tyrannical dictatorships.

Well, the real meaning of words in English is defined by usage. And the English-speaking world spent half a century locked in cold war with an evil empire. That's what the word means.

This imaginary utopia which some 19th writer dreamed up, to which said evil empire payed lip service, is a topic for those with special interests in 19th century utopian dreaming.

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

#327

Post by verylittlemeat »

collyw wrote: post #79
kccqzy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe read an introduction to eugenics?

I don't see that as a counterargument, more of a strawman. Eugenics is based on the gene pool not on relative levels of wealth (as I understand it). Honestly, if you live in desperate poverty, why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through? Yet the poorest people seem to be the most likely to have the most children. Maybe another way of phrasing t…

>Honestly, if you live in desperate poverty, why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through?

Having children is a fundamental human activity. It gives people purpose, connection, novelty and a million other things I can't think of since I'm not a parent or a mother.

As you say, many poor people have many children. Perhaps you should look into what giving birth means to them rather than just assuming they're selfish idiots.

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

#328

Post by avar »

gaius wrote: post #323
avar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This $30k number is frequently cited and seems to always lead back to http://www.globalrichlist.com It's ~$30k after tax (net income). So the actual salary number is going to be higher. It's also misleading because most rich people are rich because of wealth, not income. You need ~$770k in assets to be in the global 1%.

But that is misleading too! In the UK there are millions (probably) of people who bought their houses before the recent property boom, who theoretically have an asset worth at least that much on paper. But since all other property in the country is similarly inflated, the wealth is not real in any meaningful sense. It’s just a number.

It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living.

It also matters in a real sense. Who do you think is better off in absolute terms? Someone who owns a paid-off 200m^2 apartment in London, or someone with the same size apartment in whatever dirt-poor country you could name?

The person with the apartment in London could sell it and move to a cheaper country (or even a small town in the UK) and be relatively wealthy, but the reverse isn't true.

You're not poor in any meaningful sense compared to the rest of humanity just because you're struggling to pay off your monthly rent on your penthouse in Times Square.

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

#329

Post by v_lisivka »

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #318
v_lisivka wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I have 20 years of experience, so I know their pain points. The comment above is the one of them. Short after revolution in Russia, top communist had meeting about how many people they need to kill (so new, better Homo Soviet, will emerge and build communism). They decided that top 10% of population must be killed. These meetings notes were secret, but after drop of Iron Curtain, American scientists were able to…

How would we know if they are real? I'm interested in seeing.

These meeting notes are somewhere in the middle of microfilms mentioned in this PDF: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/decade...

I hope, this will help you to find them. As far as I remember, You should nail for meetings at beginning of 1918, so search area will be small.

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

#330

Post by dogma1138 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #320
dogma1138 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we're back to the "no true scotsman" argument, a communist government is not a contradiction unless you go by the most extreme anarchist interpretations of communist doctrine. But sure show me how you transition from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase to this stateless paradise and I'll concede my argument.

Read Marx, then come back.

I had, so again please tell me how we switch to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any mechanism through which we can evolve through it and I’ll concede my argument.

By Marks himself the dictatorship is a critical phase in the process.

Post reply on HN