Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich • Hacker News Board

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#241

Post by borism » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:20 AM UTC

uytrtyui wrote: post #238

borism wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Sweden equity compensation is made so prohibitively expensive it ensures that everyone gets paid more or less appropriate market salary. Of course very rich guys have their workarounds anyway, for example I recall reading that Ingvar Kamprad pays himself avg IKEA worker salary. Still better than those ridiculous $1 salaries of SV execs.

Ikea is the most notorius tax avoider in the world. The great swedish furniture company is actually a dutch charity.

Bill & Melinda Foundation?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#242

Post by jules » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:27 AM UTC

dustinupdyke wrote: post #104

jimmyjim wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I want to point out that it makes very much sense to have fines adjusted to one's wealth. When speeding, you're endangering people's lives. There has to be some measure that will make you think twice about speeding the next time around -- if you know that the ticket fine will be a paltry amount to you (relative to your total wealth), that is no deterrent.

I get what you are saying here, but I think the questions generated by this statement are numerous: "When speeding, you're endangering people's lives." Does this mean 56 mph is, and 55 is not dangerous somehow? By what science is this the case? What about weather conditions? The condition of your car? The type of your car? Your skill and ability to drive? Also, the randomness with which this law is enforced is troubl…

You are arguing against tickets in general, not against fines proportional to wealth.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#243

Post by benmccann » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:27 AM UTC

izendejas wrote: post #217

axod wrote: post #76

Taxing the rich (even more than they are already which IMHO is a lot ) is just punishing success and rewarding failure.

Of all those that agree with such argument, I'd like to get an answer to these questions: 1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't, you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a well-nourished and healthy wor…

You're arguing that education, infrastructure, and a non-corrupt court system is responsible for this country's success, which may well be true. However, only a tiny amount of spending is on those things. 85% of spending is on social security, the military, and medicaid. We could cut all of those things dramatically without a corresponding decrease in the country's economic output.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#244

Post by klbarry » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:39 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #147

klbarry wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not bad at all. I feel like the government should use game theory everywhere - for the poor they want to succeed and teach themselves, for the rich paying taxes, etc. It's proven to work in so many situations.

Quibble: "Game theory" refers to scenarios like prisoner's dilemma and so forth, not to gameplay mechanics.

Accurate quibble, my apologies.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#245

Post by forensic » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:40 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #222

forensic wrote: post #30

Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.

On the other hand, a mild aristocracy does seem better than the nation crumbling under debt.

I agree, but then again I've always been a monarchy-sympathizer.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#246

Post by forensic » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:46 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #144

forensic wrote: post #30

Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.

Aristocracy is different from this. Generally, aristocracy is both hereditary and disconnected from actual wealth. In the UK, JK Rowling, even though she is richer than the Queen, is not an aristocrat. She is, in fact, upper middle class. Someone who's born into the aristocracy, even if they're not especially wealthy, is an aristocrat.

You're just noticing the difference between a 1000 year old aristocracy and a burgeoning one.

Aristocracy always begins with a way to define the elite. Over time social mobility will decline and people will start to notice that it's mainly the children of elite who become elite. Eventually this will lead to the belief that only the children of elite can be elite. Once this belief is entrenched, it's natural for the new reality to be codified in law.

Do remember that even in England there was social mobility. If you performed a great service for King and Country you would be granted land and title.

Social mobility exists in all societies. Just some more than others. In America we are observing the emergence of a natural aristocracy - a story as old as history itself.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#247

Post by forensic » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:49 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #224

nostrademons wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if we're headed towards a hereditary aristocracy as well, because of assortative mating. People tend to marry others in the same social class; rich marry rich, smart marry smart, and highly-educated marry highly-educated. And then they tend to pass on those advantages to their children. It doesn't take all that many generations before that becomes entrenched and it becomes impossible to jump from one class t…

People can move up or down a social class or two. I know people who came from fairly little wealth who earn decent urban-professional six-figure salaries, and people come out of families in the upper-middle professional class and become multimillionaire entrepreneurs. (Likewise, other people move down.) Entrenched aristocracies happen when you have old money that looks down on the "nouveau riche". Every country has a…

>Entrenched aristocracies happen when you have old money that looks down on the "nouveau riche".

That's not the cause of aristocracy, that's the effect.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#248

Post by jpwagner » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:51 AM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #202

jpwagner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fat chance...maybe the above joke is silly, but no one has "a way of establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation."

What's wrong with rise in net worth over a year?

maybe i took "true" too literally.

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#249

Post by bermanoid » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 2:58 AM UTC

axod wrote: post #76

Taxing the rich (even more than they are already which IMHO is a lot ) is just punishing success and rewarding failure.

A flat tax rate, by charging a higher dollar amount to the rich person than the poor person, is still punishing success and rewarding failure, because the rich person pays a hell of a lot more for the same services than the poor person.

I propose that we charge everyone an equal dollar amount, that's surely the only way to be fair - after all, if you go out to dinner with five people and rack up a $200 bill, everyone pays $40, that's "fair".

Right?

Re: Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich

#250

Post by philwelch » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 3:10 AM UTC

forensic wrote: post #247

philwelch wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can move up or down a social class or two. I know people who came from fairly little wealth who earn decent urban-professional six-figure salaries, and people come out of families in the upper-middle professional class and become multimillionaire entrepreneurs. (Likewise, other people move down.) Entrenched aristocracies happen when you have old money that looks down on the "nouveau riche". Every country has a…

>Entrenched aristocracies happen when you have old money that looks down on the "nouveau riche". That's not the cause of aristocracy, that's the effect.

It's neither. It's just part of the aristocracy (the other part being the willingness of the rest of society to humor old money in their self-perception as being aristocratic).