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

The Angry Rich

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: The Angry Rich

#51

Post by zoomzoom »

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…

The problem is that the distinction between "earned" money and "handout" money is not so clear. If you "earn" your money by servicing porky government contracts, is this something that you have done entirely on your own? Are you entitled to keep your profits if you pull them out of the ponzi scheme before it collapses?

Alot of the wealth in the top 1% of Americans these days was earned by people who in one way or another got rich by timing their entry and exit from the scam properly. An honest assessment of wealth creation since 1980 could come to no other conclusion. The scam was so big that they might not be morally accountable in a personal sense for doing wrong. But do these people deserve to keep their earnings, even as the extent of the scam becomes clear to the rest of us?

The reality is that money is not earned in a vacuum. We all depend on others to make our living somehow, even self-employed solo founders. If society cannot bear to give so much to the wealthiest 1 in 1000 any longer, do they have a right to collapse the whole economy in defense of their profits?

Re: The Angry Rich

#52

Post by jbooth »

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…

"If you're a pro-tax liberal"

Have you ever, once in your life, met someone who identified as a "pro-tax liberal"?

Didn't think so.

Re: The Angry Rich

#53

Post by kenjackson »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #48
kenjackson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also heard of "an eye for an eye", but in a debate about the modern justice system its an absurd position to take. Likewise, your position that taxation in the US is wrong is an extraordinary claim, even with a pithy saying. Most conservatives would agree that some taxes are necessary. With that said, there's probably nothing that stops you from buying an island and enjoying all fhe fruits of labor you can creat…

your position that taxation in the US is wrong is an extraordinary claim If you scan back up the thread, you'll see that I haven't made any such claim. My statement was that this is a valid moral theory, and can't be dismissed out-of-hand (as you are continuing to do). That is, I haven't argued in agreement to the poster above, I've just called you (and others) out because you've shouted him down with negative votes,…

Sorry, my argument about the extraordinary claim was against the poster who was downvoted, not you.

I'm not sure what a "valid" moral theory is. What I do know is that he made a claim that no reasonable person that I know would agree with. And provided no evidence to back it up. This is trolling. When you say that Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is wrong, with no evidence, that is trolling. When you say Ruby is strictly superior to any other programming language, with no evidence, that is trolling. When you say that taxes are morally wrong, with no argument for it, that is trolling.

And trolling gets people downvoted. That's my argument against you. :-)

Re: The Angry Rich

#54

Post by spot »

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…

I don't see many people claiming that keeping taxes low on the rich benefits society. That fig leaf wore thin a long time ago. This is heartless greed. It's especially immoral given how the rich have benefited from the state.

Re: The Angry Rich

#55

Post by maigret »

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…

"dilution of their wealth through inflation"? Many statistics recently shown the riches have apparently never been that rich before: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/25/rich-list-wea...

Re: The Angry Rich

#56

Post by okaramian »

amh wrote: post #35
okaramian wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't these societal conditions apply to "good" and "bad" software developers alike? All other things being equal, if you're successful and somebody else fails (selling to the same market), then the most obvious explanation is that you met the needs of your customers better and somehow improved their lives. This is signaled by a monetary reward greater than the guy who failed, and proportional to the value you added.…

I agree that I'm making valuable contributions, but I'm clearly in debt to the society I live in for the opportunities that are available.

Re: The Angry Rich

#57

Post by il »

jbooth wrote: post #52
il wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"If you're a pro-tax liberal" Have you ever, once in your life, met someone who identified as a "pro-tax liberal"? Didn't think so.

I'm just drawing a distinction. I would describe myself as an anti tax liberal.

Re: The Angry Rich

#58

Post by sokoloff »

olegk wrote: post #13
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.

A significant portion of the poor are taxed well below 15% on a average basis, with a non-trivial fraction below 0%.

I'd be hard-pressed (as would you) to concoct a "poor" person's tax return with an average rate of roughly 30-40%.

Re: The Angry Rich

#59

Post by jbooth »

il wrote: post #57
jbooth wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you're a pro-tax liberal" Have you ever, once in your life, met someone who identified as a "pro-tax liberal"? Didn't think so.

I'm just drawing a distinction. I would describe myself as an anti tax liberal.

Eh, I think both of those are silly framings. Nobody likes paying taxes.

I'm a "pro balanced budget" liberal, and that meant that throughout the Bush years I was saying "Hey, we're gonna have to pay for these tax cuts eventually", while simultaneously saying "Hey, let's cut defense and homeland security spending because at least 1/2 of it is BS that doesn't make us safer."

Not like I love the idea of paying more taxes, or of quote "big government" - I just give basic arithmetic a lot of respect.

Re: The Angry Rich

#60

Post by il »

DannoHung wrote: post #45
il wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if more Americans knew how much we were spending on war they would be less inclined to support it. "Death and Taxes" is a well-known and clear infographic of government spending: http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ It shows military and security spending as 63% of the 2011 budget(895 billion). The discussion here seems mostly about the income tax, so I'm focusing on that. I'm not morally opposed to paying t…

63% of the discretionary budget. If you look at non-discretionary spending as well, you'll see that it's like.. less than 20% of the money spent.

Right, all I was saying is that the majority of the _income tax_ you pay goes to military spending. I'm not counting FICA, as nobody is discussing raising or lower those taxes.
Post reply on HN