The Angry Rich • Hacker News Board

Re: The Angry Rich

#11

Post by zdw » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:14 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

I call BS on this.

You were able to earn that money because:

1. You most likely live in a relatively free society most likely operating under the rule of law.

2. You were able to achieve what you did by "standing on the shoulders of giants".

3. You're most likely the recipient of an education provided by society that gave you the tools and opportunity to succeed.

Now, if society says that "Because we've helped you be so successful, it behooves you to contribute X percentage of your earnings back to society.", is that so wrong?

You have a moral responsibility to leave the world the same or better than you entered it. This concept seems to be lost in a sea of selfishness today...

Re: The Angry Rich

#12

Post by okaramian » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:16 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

Our economy is an ecosystem. I'm a software developer because there is a demand for it, and the only reason this demand exists is because people are educated enough to use my product.

How do you determine the line between what one has earned vs. what one may have been granted via a series of societal issues?

Re: The Angry Rich

#13

Post by olegk » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:18 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #7

Krugman is such a hack. He never acknowledges the good arguments of the other side. Always makes it seem like the other side is full of drooling selfish evil idiots. Can't stand reading the man's columns.

So you think it's great that rich get taxed at 15% and the poor/middle class at roughly 30-40%?

I'm pretty sure among you and Krugman, you're a hack.

Re: The Angry Rich

#14

Post by ryanricard » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:19 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

I dislike this framing of taxation in absolute terms. Yes, the government "takes" a portion of your earnings, but in doing so it provides a number of services, some of which were prerequisites to those earnings in the first place (paving the road that brought customers to your storefront).

Sure, we can argue about particulars of how the government chooses to allocate those "takings." I wish my government would spend less on its military, for instance. Other people might wish it to spend less on social welfare programs. But neither of us can honestly use absolute language like "Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it." Arguing that states cannot tax is arguing that states cannot exist.

My apologies if you are an honest defendant of some form of anarchism, but I feel like using such absolutist language to discuss a proposed three percent increase in the top marginal tax rate seems incongruous. It feels like you have the intent of inspiring knee-jerk emotions instead of rational discourse. It's fishy.

Re: The Angry Rich

#15

Post by hristov » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:21 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #7

Krugman is such a hack. He never acknowledges the good arguments of the other side. Always makes it seem like the other side is full of drooling selfish evil idiots. Can't stand reading the man's columns.

Then you should perhaps point out the good arguments of the other side.

Re: The Angry Rich

#16

Post by dbfclark » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:21 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

If your argument shows that all taxation is immoral and not to be borne, doesn't it prove rather too much?

Re: The Angry Rich

#17

Post by niels_olson » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:24 PM UTC

viggity wrote: post #8

thyrsusmaximon wrote: post #2

The Economist (a magazine that is very pro-business) had an interesting article recently about social psychology experiments that showed that the rich are less able to enjoy the day to day pleasures of life. And this effect also happens among people temporarily made relatively rich (say given $100) or even just shown pictures of money. The need of our economic system to keep people consuming creates advertising indoc…

Oh, so it is ok to take away what someone else's earnings because you know better than they do?

In a complex society with specialized occupations like "entrepreneur", "economist" and "congress-critter"? Yes. BTW, how's DARPAnet working for you these days?

Re: The Angry Rich

#18

Post by exit » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:25 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

"earned" is a more complicated concept than you make it out to be.

did you "earn" the particular set of aptitudes and interests that made you a "high earner" at this juncture in history? i'm pretty sure you were just lucky in that respect.

you mention "or my family before me" - it takes quite a particular set of beliefs to say that you are entitled to what your ancestors earned.

what if you inherit tremendous wealth from ancestors who "earned" it through tremendous injustice (slavery, exploiting addiction, etc.)? even if you go on to leverage that wealth legitimately, how do you compare your earnings against those of someone who started out differently.

Re: The Angry Rich

#19

Post by zzzmarcus » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:27 PM UTC

I don't think it's any mystery why the rich are angry. Whether it's right or wrong, they see it this way:

"I've spent my entire life working to build wealth. I've sacrificed and it's paid off. Now I'd like to use my wealth in the way I see fit. Whether that's spending it, saving it, investing it or giving it away, it should be my decision, not a government planner's decision."

Again, right or wrong, that is how the rich view the situation when they are facing increased taxes and dilution of their wealth through inflation. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not hard to understand.

Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree.

Re: The Angry Rich

#20

Post by CWuestefeld » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:34 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

It seems to me like those who are voting this comment down are doing so not because the viewpoint it provides is wasting our time, or poorly expressed, or anything like that.

This looks to me like nothing but shouting him down because you disagree with what he's got to say. In a case like this, I think you ought to win the battle through superior logic and rhetoric, not just by voting him down so nobody sees his thoughts.