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

Is Inequality Inevitable?

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 628 posts

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#571

Post by learc83 »

WalterBright wrote: post #416
learc83 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the top 1% earn 2x as much of the income as they did 50 years ago, but don't pay 2x more of the share of income tax. Meaning that income tax is less progressive now. Also the 38% number that right wing groups like to throw around is very carefully crafted to avoid FICA taxes, which account for a much larger percentage of the tax burden for lower income earners. And the social security component goes away after th…

If you express FICA in terms of benefits received / contributions paid, it is quite progressive.

If you're only considering direct first order benefits then nearly all taxes are quite progressive. Even a flat 10% income tax would be progressive using that model because people's direct consumption of government services doesn't scale linearly with income. The only way to have a non-progressive tax was to charge everyone a flat rate.

"Why should I have have to pay a penny more in taxes than that teacher over there. It's not like I'm consuming more units of military protection than they are."

Hopefully you can see the problem with that.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#572

Post by CharlesColeman »

jariel wrote: post #215
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples of that? Most of the poor have no wealth in the first place.

"Can you give some examples of that? Most of the poor have no wealth in the first place" They don't have wealth arguably because it's taken by those with considerably greater leverage. Asymmetric parameters like avoiding regulations regarding 'full time employment' (i.e. Uber) is one very common way that employers keep workers down. It's not always obvious either - just as H1Bs can create a lot of value, in many case…

BTW, you're banned, if you didn't already know.

All your comments are hidden to most users unless someone who chose to see them vouches for them.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#573

Post by learc83 »

WalterBright wrote: post #417
rhacker wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it should be more like 50% because doesn't the 1% have 50% of all assets?

Maybe, but if you eliminate the 1%, then who is going to pay that 38%?

Taxing the 1% more heavily isn't really the same thing as eliminating the 1% though is it? And taxing wealth over a certain limit, which is what the person you were replying to is probably getting at, solves your problem taxing income preventing people from becoming wealthy in the first place.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#574

Post by xyzzyz »

bumby wrote: post #527
username90 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Sweden were the things you are talking about doesn't apply, getting into our best colleges isn't particularly hard and private schools you have to pay for are almost non-existent. Yet there are still a significant gap in how much people earn, and kids from rich families still do much better in school and college than kids from poor families.

Fair enough. At least here in the States, Scandinavian countries are often portrayed as more equitable on relative terms. Do you know how Sweden's inequality compares to the U.S. quantitatively? The training for schooling outlined in the book is often independent of the school structure (e.g., tutoring, test prep etc.). The upper echelons didn't think it was uncommon to spend $100k per student on this extra training.…

> Do you know how Sweden's inequality compares to the U.S. quantitatively?

By the Gini coefficient, the inequality is much lower, but the social mobility rate is about the same.

http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/The%20Son%20A...

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#575

Post by WalterBright »

tremon wrote: post #520
WalterBright wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> his starting point is that labor is identified with value This is a large mistake. For example, spending an hour on an exercise bike is certainly a lot of labor input, but nothing of value, since nobody will pay you to cycle on an exercise bike.

You're making a large mistake too. For example, that nobody will pay you to cycle on an exercise bike does not mean your labor has no value -- after all, if you're in better health, you will be more productive in the hours you're not on that bike. (to make my point more explicit: in Marx' definition of labor he implies labor of enterprise, not just spending calories. Just like your definition of value implies financi…

> Just like your definition of value implies financial value

When the discussion is about economics, that's what matters. There is no intrinsic value to labor.

> Marx' definition of labor he implies labor of enterprise

The economic value of labor has no necessary relationship at all to the effort or time supplied by the laborer. If Bob works inefficiently, his labor is worth less than Bill who works efficiently, even if they both work exactly the same length and effort.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#576

Post by WalterBright »

learc83 wrote: post #573
WalterBright wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but if you eliminate the 1%, then who is going to pay that 38%?

Taxing the 1% more heavily isn't really the same thing as eliminating the 1% though is it? And taxing wealth over a certain limit, which is what the person you were replying to is probably getting at, solves your problem taxing income preventing people from becoming wealthy in the first place.

> Taxing the 1% more heavily isn't really the same thing as eliminating the 1% though is it?

Bernie Sanders has stated he wants to tax billionaires into non-billionaire status. So yes, it's about eliminating the 1%.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#577

Post by restalis »

danans wrote: post #310
kjhkhkj wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when people have access to same things but compete for different things, for example status, choice of partners, etc. People are already complaining about inequality of status and partners. Why is inequality of wealth less just than those other things? > Inequality does not mean we need to have people who can't satisfy their most basic things I honestly don't understand why and moral arguments are not convincing.

> I honestly don't understand why When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society. This is a reason why such crime is strongly correl…

"When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society."

We should note that there is such things as free shelter and food for homeless and anything above that is "wants" rather than "needs". Taking care of equal opportunity is fair, but doing anything else to accomodate individuals otherwise inclined to crime is not fair at all.

"This is a reason why such crime is strongly correlated with areas of endemic poverty."

I agree with the correlation, but I go further to say that poverty just accomodates crime (i.e. troublesome individuals having it easier in those areas for encountering less action towards prevention and countering deliquent behavior), and thus is at most an indirect factor to crime, not a direct one.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#578

Post by tsimionescu »

ctdonath wrote: post #564
tsimionescu wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My proposal is that no one person is entitled to own vastly expensive items that required the work of countless people to create. Those items should generally be collectively owned by the people who designed and built them. The profits from operating them should go to the people operating them (which includes marketing and sales people and whatever else is needed), in some democratically chosen percentage. I said not…

As one who is not involved in creation or operation of “vastly expensive” items, you have no say in the matter. Those involved do have a say, that being accepting or rejecting contracted providence of goods or services, which may or may not involve co-ownership. Distribution of profits occurs by contracting. Democracy doesn’t apply because those not involved have no say. You are entitled to life insofar as nobody may…

In an ideal world, they should have more of a say than 'take it or leave it'. And in fact, for most of human history, people who produced things did have more say than that.

I was also talking about democratic governance among the worker-owners: this is how cooperatives work in general. The strict top-to-bottom autocracy of regular corporations is not the only possible system of governance for a successful market actor.

As for food, it's not so much capitalism as enormous state subsidies that affect the price of food in America. And living on 2-3$ worth of food a day will not lead you to a long life. Also, how is someone refusing you the right to take food when you are starving not actively taking your life from you?

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#579

Post by tsimionescu »

imtringued wrote: post #540
tsimionescu wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My proposal is that no one person is entitled to own vastly expensive items that required the work of countless people to create. Those items should generally be collectively owned by the people who designed and built them. The profits from operating them should go to the people operating them (which includes marketing and sales people and whatever else is needed), in some democratically chosen percentage. I said not…

>The profits from operating them should go to the people operating them Well, economic theory says that the profits should approach zero as more and more competitors join the market and the provided goods or services become commodities. This effectively is a redistribution mechanism. The reality is a bit uglier. By the way, prevention of wealth accumulation doesn't require repossession of existing property. A simple…

Agreed, and I never mentioned repossession. I was taking about ideal notions of entitlement, not practical measures for realizing that entitlement.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#580

Post by tsimionescu »

imtringued wrote: post #538
tsimionescu wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is anyone entitled to own a chip fab? Why is some rich daughter entitled to own a chip fab? Because she is in the current system, while anyone else would have to work their whole lives, and convince hundreds of others to work with them, to create a chip fab, if they wanted to own one.

>Why is anyone entitled to own a chip fab? If I make a coffee why should I be entitled to drink it? Well it's obvious. I bought the ingredients, heated water, etc... I consumed my own resources to make the coffee. If I don't own the end result then by making coffee I am just harming myself. >while anyone else would have to work their whole lives, and convince hundreds of others to work with them, to create a chip fab…

There are people rich enough in this world that they could probably buy a chip fab 'money down' from their own finances. If that is somehow exaggerated, there are certainly people rich enough that they could buy, say, a shoe factory, or a brewery. The point still stands.

Also, even if you involve a bank: the rich daughter can get credit to buy a factory, while the worker in the factory certainly could not.

Post reply on HN