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

The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 189 posts

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#111

Post by k__ »

throwaway8278 wrote: post #55
k__ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure thing, but what do we have now? Most people are only successful because of their inheritance. If you would be forbidden to give your kids more than a million that would solve that problem pretty well, I guess.

While this is a commonly believed myth, it is a myth. The vast majority of millionaires and other "wealthy" people are self made, not made from inheritance.

Are they?

I always read about so believed "self-made" just to find out that they had rich or at least wealthy parents.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#112

Post by khawkins »

aledalgrande wrote: post #32

As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. I am conflicted about this way of trying to solve the problem. Also, this is assuming the tax money gets used efficiently and not to the advantage of the t…

An inheritance tax is a solution for wealth inequality in the same way that picking at a scab gets rid of the scab.

Sure, it might be satisfying to get rid of, but it only causes the wound to bleed more, a new scab will form, and getting rid of it isn't what you actually need, you need the wound to heal. If the wound heals, the scab will fall off, but picking at it only makes the healing time longer.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#113

Post by erentz »

squirrelicus wrote: post #61
billions wrote: post #49

Is the Hacker News community open to alternative viewpoints on this subject? It would be informative to read a wide spectrum of opinions, like we get for things like microprocessor design and code libraries.

Generally you get downvoted for doing so, but people still try to argue. I have a lot to say on the subject, but one thing I still need an argument for is why inequality is bad intrinsically. I'd love to hear a cogent argument that addresses that fundamental point, but what I end up seeing in the wild is camps of people who think inequality is some intrinsic evil, and those that don't think it's relevant to anything.

No one would be talking about it if everyone was still earning a good wage, able to live a decent middle class life, have a family, had no issues visiting a doctor, etc. etc. But they aren't. People in the bottom 90% (or whatever) are feeling very much like they're falling behind, while they watch the top 10% (or whatever) get richer and richer.

If the system were working for most people and they felt they had good lives, I don't even think people would be particularly concerned about the concentration of power that comes with the concentration of wealth because they would see the system working for them.

Certainly we should talk in terms of ensuring there is an adequate floor, rather than in terms of bringing down the ceiling. What's the point of lowering that ceiling if the people at the bottom still can't see a doctor? And raising the floor is indeed what a lot of progressive proposals do aim for (Medicare for All, or Living Wage, or UBI, etc.). But providing that floor requires funding. Funding anything is always redistribution of some kind with the wealthier paying more because that's where the money is.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#114

Post by aledalgrande »

dlp211 wrote: post #80
aledalgrande wrote: post #32

As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. I am conflicted about this way of trying to solve the problem. Also, this is assuming the tax money gets used efficiently and not to the advantage of the t…

> As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. The middle class is not subject to Federal Estate taxes. The exemptions are $11MM and $22MM if the estate first passed to a spouse. Neither of those are…

Those seem pretty high ceilings for middle class, but would someone who has 10B in assets really pay out? I am skeptical in practice it would happen. But you never know, in Canada taxes seem to work.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#115

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

_vufv wrote: post #99
Mikeb85 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's OK to fuck over a large portion of your own population because it's trickling down to a poor country? The issue is that nations have a duty to their own citizens, good luck telling an entire generation that they need to make sacrifices for others while the rich keep getting richer.

I read OP's comment more as a neutral statement of a fact than as a justification for the globalization processes. I'd be willing to wager that none of the actors pushing these processes are minding either of these two inequality facts (inequality in developed countries rising, inequality is developing countries falling). These actors are driven by their incentives and the current system makes it good for them to fur…

That's the Big Lie of economics - that this is just how it is, and people don't/shouldn't care.

In fact mainstream neoliberal economic theory has always been about rationalising political actions that operate against the interests of most of the population.

The origination and promotion of these economic myths is calculated, deliberate, and absolutely malicious in intent. The Chicago School didn't just happen - it was created, promoted, funded and nurtured as a dogmatic political movement opposed to Keynesianism.

Individual actors may not care, but that's exactly the problem -they've been incentivised not to.

Under a more humane system, they could just as easily be incentivised towards other actions.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#116

Post by TrackerFF »

throwawaysea wrote: post #14

Why is inequality a problem if everyone else’s quality of life is improving? Poverty is lower than ever and most adults in developed countries have a smartphone, an unimaginable luxury that not even the richest could have twenty years ago. Things are good.

Are people getting wealthier, or more indebted?

Getting people out of poverty is good, but not if it's simply by throwing debt at them.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#117

Post by dwaltrip »

aledalgrande wrote: post #32

As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. I am conflicted about this way of trying to solve the problem. Also, this is assuming the tax money gets used efficiently and not to the advantage of the t…

There will be always some avenues to get around any given tax policy, but not all of these methods will be equally effective.

If one policy results in half the amount of avoidance as another policy, this is a very meaningful difference.

It's really important to not overlook this.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#118

Post by DoreenMichele »

jnordwick wrote: post #90
DoreenMichele wrote: post #42

As Kuznets determined, it was after the American Civil War that the gap between the rich and the poor began to widen. I wonder how much of that was counting blacks in the South as people (after slavery was ended). During the post Civil War era, they typically made half as much as whites for the same work. I read a history book years ago which, unfortunately, I can't determine the name of. The current narrative is tha…

This is almost exactly opposes the history of union support of minimum wage legislation. It was pushed and supported by predominantly white unions to protect their workers from lower skill and cheaper minority workers. The minimum wage doesn't just say you can't hire a worker for less than an amount. The other side is that you are not allowed to sell your labor for less than the floor. White union workers were being…

I stated up front that it's the opposite of our current narrative, so telling me this doesn't actually add anything at all to the conversation.

The book was very well documented. At the time, I had no idea it said the opposite of the usual framing or might have made more effort to remember the title and author.

The book suggested the Federal policy initially failed in its goal because racist whites in the South simply fired blacks rather than "pay them a white man's wage." The start of WW2 helped it eventually succeed, but there was also a fairly widespread exodus of blacks from the rural South to urban centers elsewhere in the US as a personal means to solve such problems on an individual basis.

I was homeless for several years. During that time, I did piece work. Initially, it was common for my hourly earnings to be well below minimum wage, like as little as $1.25 an hour. Over time, this changed.

So I am actually a proponent of the idea that we need to make it possible for people to work for less than minimum wage so they have the ability to better than themselves. I don't think it's a good idea to allow wage work per se to be that low because it easily becomes an inescapable personal hell. But we do need to design work opportunities that can pay less than minimum wage if it takes you a long time to complete it, but also has the ability to become a more middle class income if you get good at and thus get faster or otherwise qualify for similar work that nonetheless pays better.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#120

Post by biql »

aledalgrande wrote: post #32

As much as in theory inheritance tax is a solution for the problem, I don't think in practice it works well. The ultra rich will always have avenues to escape tax. The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest. I am conflicted about this way of trying to solve the problem. Also, this is assuming the tax money gets used efficiently and not to the advantage of the t…

> The middle class instead, trying to secure a better future for the family, will get hit the hardest.

That's what progressive income tax does as well. Not all that unexpected the middle class is shrinking.

Post reply on HN