The Angry Rich • Hacker News Board

Re: The Angry Rich

#21

Post by zzzmarcus » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:36 PM UTC

zdw wrote: post #11

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…

The disagreement isn't about leaving the world the same or better, almost everyone wants that.

The argument is which is the superior method for making the world better. On one side you have Krugman who believes you should tax the rich and let the government spend the wealth the rich accumulated to improve conditions for everyone.

On the other side you people who think that if you allow people to spend, save and invest their money as they choose, society will come out better in the end.

Side A likes to portray side B as selfish, greedy bastards and side B likes to portray side A as communists thieves. Really though, if you take the actual objectives of both sides I would argue they're generally noble.

There is still the matter of who is actually right. That is where the real argument is.

Re: The Angry Rich

#22

Post by CapitalistCartr » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:40 PM UTC

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…

I've known several dozen wealthy people and none of them are like that. Not one. All of them were older, and paid little attention to the 'consumer culture' that advertising promotes. Most of that advertising was through channels that target the young (under 45) crowd because they are the ones best influenced by it.

Re: The Angry Rich

#23

Post by viggity » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:40 PM UTC

niels_olson wrote: post #17

viggity wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm happy to pay (reasonable) taxes for needs that cannot be easily serviced by private industry. That isn't what my post was about.

The post I was replying to was trying to insinuate that having "excess wealth" leads to being unhappy and therefore (in the context of the OP) it is ok to tax the rich more because it will make them happier in the end. And that is a bullshit reason for taxing someone.

Re: The Angry Rich

#24

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:40 PM UTC

zzzmarcus wrote: post #19

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 r…

[deleted]

Re: The Angry Rich

#25

Post by il » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:42 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #9

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 am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one. Just to be clear, you are stating your moral opinion . There is nothing inherent about these opinions. Just like my opinion that if you are rich you have likely benefited disproportion…

I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc).

Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc.

If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high defense spending, but you're perfectly happy to keep funding it with your tax dollars.

Just food for thought.

EDIT: If you want to quibble, the majority of discretionary spending is military(not counting Social Security/Medicare). Since that's where your income tax dollars go, it's a reasonable argument to make.

Re: The Angry Rich

#26

Post by kenjackson » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:44 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #20

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 thou…

You really think this is not a waste of time to read? "It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one."

And given how extraordinary the claim is, there's not a single argument to support it. It seems like the definition of trolling. A well-reasoned argument for why we should either have no taxes or an extremely regressive tax system would be welcome, but I see nothing of the sort in that post.

Re: The Angry Rich

#27

Post by CapitalistCartr » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:46 PM UTC

exit wrote: post #18

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…

I didn't inherit any money. As for my aptitudes and interests, they didn't make me a 'high earner'; they didn't make me a dime. My work to apply them did.

I see a lot of that attitude, that because I was born smart is why I have the job I do now. I wasn't born smart. That information didn't start out in my brain. I spent a lot of Saturdays as a kid at the library, reading non-fiction. I spend a lot of time now, reading non-fiction. In other words, I study.

I have a career coach, that helps me make plans to accomplish my goals. A lot of work went into this 'born success'. I think it's only perceived that way because others don't want to see that they can do it, too.

Re: The Angry Rich

#28

Post by kenjackson » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:48 PM UTC

il wrote: post #25

lutorm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one. Just to be clear, you are stating your moral opinion . There is nothing inherent about these opinions. Just like my opinion that if you are rich you have likely benefited disproportion…

I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc). Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc. If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high…

These claims need citations.

And remember, we don't just pay federal income taxes. We also pay state incomes tax (most states), sales tax (most states and locales), property tax, item taxes (like luxury taxes), FICA tax, etc...

While I'm sure a LOT of money goes to the military, I'm not sure I believe it is most of it.

Re: The Angry Rich

#29

Post by olegk » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:49 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…

Nobody is being taxed on the cash one has in his bank account. You're taxed on the income your cash generates.

So cut the crap.

Re: The Angry Rich

#30

Post by zdw » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 6:50 PM UTC

zzzmarcus wrote: post #21

zdw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The disagreement isn't about leaving the world the same or better, almost everyone wants that. The argument is which is the superior method for making the world better. On one side you have Krugman who believes you should tax the rich and let the government spend the wealth the rich accumulated to improve conditions for everyone. On the other side you people who think that if you allow people to spend, save and inves…

If the goal is to create economic activity...

- Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it, and not in them going out and spending it right now.

- Taking actions that result in someone who is just scraping by having more money is more likely to result in them spending that money right now.

If the goal is to get the economy moving again, I tend to think the latter solution is a better one in this instance.

Also, public works are a great thing to spend on - we're going to have to do it eventually, labor is really cheap right now, and it's better to fix before it breaks and more people die because of broken gas lines or collapsing bridges....