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

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#161

Post by aries1980 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #158
aries1980 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well they're seeing a rise in immigration (which economically speaking has the same effect as offshoring) Not really, because some or all of he income of these immigrants are taxed and spent domestically.

Decreasing the cost of labour through immigration is the same. Most immigrants also send money back home. So yes it's the same effect even if the it's not quite the same amount.

But discounting the labour cost is not the only dimension. These immigrants are spending money domestically, increasing the domestic output, creating new market demands, paying rents, etc.

I do understand your logic, but my argument is while offshore money is spent outside the borders, immigrants spend most of their income domestically and pay their taxes, which is a too big difference to put it into the same category.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#162

Post by notzuck »

nugget wrote: post #4

Implementation may be politically difficult, but the solution isn't rocket science: substantially raise the inheritance tax and abolish all trust loopholes.

Raise inheritance tax... So people can inherit their family home then immediately have to sell it because they can't afford the tax bill just because their parents purchased in a cheap part of London that boomed 30 years later? No thanks.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#163

Post by imtringued »

jddj wrote: post #94
throwawaysea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? This seems arbitrary. If I earned it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

At the extremely wealthy end, you almost certainly didn't . There's hard work, and there's luck. Your genes, your environment and the randomness of the universe add to make up 100% of both of those things. I don't think it's fair to say that the children (and their children, and their children) of someone who won the randomness / genetic / environmental lottery should be thousands of times better off than the childre…

That's missing the point. People don't get angry about someone else being a thousand times better off. They get angry about being left behind while certain special interests take all the gains.

That's something that can't be solved by an inheritance tax or sending children to boarding schools from the day they are born to let them grow up in a homogeneous environment.

All of those children will then feel left behind while their parents party away their last savings because the state is going to take it away anyway, right?

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#165

Post by imtringued »

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.

Why would you use something that costs less than rent as an example of lack of poverty?

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#166

Post by imtringued »

gridlockd wrote: post #65
meshr wrote: post #21

You can "print" unlimited amount of money but Earth resources are limited, moreover its usage is overshot (Earth Overshoot Day is 29 July 2019). So the problem is how the money is spent. We should tax money that spent to decrease Overshoot Day.

Earth's resources are limited over a given timespan, but most of these resources are not exhaustible , particularly not hydrocarbons. Given that all human populations that have reached a certain standard of living so far have ceased to grow beyond replacement levels, overpopulation is likely not going to be a long-term concern either. It is therefore not a problem to overshoot for a while, assuming that we eventually…

Hydrocarbons didn't form themselves. An energy source is required to remove the oxygen from CO2. If it is possible to tap that energy source directly, then depending on energy from hydrocarbons is incredibly irresponsible because high concentrations of CO2 make the planet less habitable for most life including humans.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#167

Post by gridlockd »

meshr wrote: post #156
gridlockd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth's resources are limited over a given timespan, but most of these resources are not exhaustible , particularly not hydrocarbons. Given that all human populations that have reached a certain standard of living so far have ceased to grow beyond replacement levels, overpopulation is likely not going to be a long-term concern either. It is therefore not a problem to overshoot for a while, assuming that we eventually…

Earth's resources are decreasing over a given timespan because we both spent exhaustible resources and produce wastes for future generations. It can’t be sustainable system. There is no evidence that overpopulation is not long-term concern. Look at Africa, India, China New technologies are not guaranteed. You can’t simultaneously give less and less time and resources to your children and ask them to be better than yo…

> Earth's resources are decreasing over a given timespan because we both spent exhaustible resources and produce wastes for future generations.

To my awareness, there is no critical resource that is both exhaustible and non-substitutable. Waste is not a fundamental issue, it can be stockpiled and possibly recycled with future technology. Most of it can also simply be burned with relatively low environmental impact, at least in modern incinerators [1].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration#Arguments_for_inc...

> There is no evidence that overpopulation is not long-term concern. Look at Africa, India, China.

Yes, do look at these countries:

Chinese fertility today is well below replacement, despite giving up the disastrous "one child policy".

Indian fertility rates are at 2.2, very near replacement levels.

African fertility rates vary wildly with countries, but here as well you can see that fertility is inversely correlated with standard of living. Moreover, a low standard of living also implies relatively low resource usage.

> New technologies are not guaranteed.

New technology isn't strictly required, it just implies a lower standard of living.

> You can’t simultaneously give less and less time and resources to your children and ask them to be better than you.

Of course you can. The more pressure there is, the more likely it is that new solutions are developed.

Imagine if there wasn't any petrol left, we'd put a lot more effort into renewables. They wouldn't even need subsidies.

> They will choose to continue your tactic until civilization collapse as future generations can't vote

Well, sometimes civilizations do collapse. We may well enter an age of decline again. We also may launch a global thermonuclear war. I'm not saying a rosy future is guaranteed, I'm saying resource exhaustion and overpopulation are not as big a concern as people believe.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#168

Post by gridlockd »

imtringued wrote: post #166
gridlockd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth's resources are limited over a given timespan, but most of these resources are not exhaustible , particularly not hydrocarbons. Given that all human populations that have reached a certain standard of living so far have ceased to grow beyond replacement levels, overpopulation is likely not going to be a long-term concern either. It is therefore not a problem to overshoot for a while, assuming that we eventually…

Hydrocarbons didn't form themselves. An energy source is required to remove the oxygen from CO2. If it is possible to tap that energy source directly, then depending on energy from hydrocarbons is incredibly irresponsible because high concentrations of CO2 make the planet less habitable for most life including humans.

Hydrocarbons aren't just a form of energy, just burning them is arguably a huge waste. The point is that they're not exhaustible.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#169

Post by caconym_ »

imtringued wrote: post #131
caconym_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% tax on inheritance and other hereditary wealth-transfer schemes, eliminate loopholes, use the (substantial, I assume) takings to supplement existing funds and implement a universal basic income. Also do something about education and healthcare. You can work and compete as hard as you like during your life, and get as rich as you possibly can in that time, but you can't take it with you and your wealth is used to…

A 100% inheritance tax is destructive and the government doesn't know what to do with objects that are very valuable for their previous owner and their children but worthless on the general market. How do you liquidate a family business without shutting it down because you're removing the family that is working for it? The way inheritance should be solved is by not allowing a single person to inherit more than 50% of…

What we have now is destructive, and what I'm talking about is science fiction. It would require significant legal and economic changes. Coincidentally, it appears now that the long-term survival of industrialized human society will require significant legal and economic changes. So, that's why I would say such a crazy thing.

With the wealth distribution curve we have today, I don't think your proposed solution goes anywhere near far enough to stop the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a very few who hoard it and use it to buy governments. But maybe your definition of "solved" in this context is not the same as mine.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#170

Post by squirrelicus »

lanstin wrote: post #81
squirrelicus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn’t the problem with inequality that it makes the society less stable? More envy and less feeling of being part of a group? It is good that poverty in the world is much less and there are more people in the middle class but it is also a problem that wages in the US are stagnant for large swath of the population that feels like it isn’t part of the group anymore and makes trouble because of it.

When you convince people they're being robbed because of inequality, it's a problem. Envy is the problem. It's a cognitive defect. There's a reason it's a considered a sin. You are not entitled to what other people have, and justifying that feeling is how you destroy prosperity for all.
Post reply on HN