Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#21

Post by swebs » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #6

My issue with all of these discussions is that they invariably present ideas that are just too complicated, and our tax code is just too complicated as it is. Create a system that can be applied evenly, and fairly, from the top to the bottom and then I think you’ve got a great and novel idea.

The Fair Tax plan was a neat idea. Tax everyone at X percent, while giving everyone back Y dollars per month as a form of UBI. The values of X and Y are chosen so those below the poverty line gain more money than they are taxed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#22

Post by Enginerrrd » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

richardwhiuk wrote: post #10

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.

Is there any theoretical reasoning for expecting a Pareto distribution to result? Would a distribution closer to normal not be equally valid?

Well for starters, such a curve would be fundamentally impossible. You draw such a curve by sorting the data points from wealthiest to least.

But I suppose, adding no additional logic you could have one half of a normal distribution, normalized by multiplying everything by 2 to account for that.

However, that doesn't strike me as a very natural distribution for a self-organized system with some randomness, and exponential growth. Power and wealth always seems to find its way to some type of power law distribution. You could only enforce such a distribution by concentrating power to the most extreme limit of a power distribution to exert control over the rest. And it's likely that for any definition of wealth you could come up with, people would just find a proxy for wealth that isn't counted by which they could start to exert more control.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#23

Post by sharpneli » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

richardwhiuk wrote: post #10

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.

Is there any theoretical reasoning for expecting a Pareto distribution to result? Would a distribution closer to normal not be equally valid?

Depends on the kind of system obviously.

Power law is reasonably easy to get. Even with identical starting wealth just having chance + compound interest is enough to produce it. No need for anything more complex than that.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#24

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #16

xwdv wrote: post #4

Every time you talk about the top 1% or even the top 0.01%, you eliminate an opportunity to talk about how you can really help the bottom 50%. By constantly painting things as hopeless and unfair, all you do is stimulate rage.

That rage needs to be there so that we can change the system that produces and perpetuates the unfairness. Rage is a tool for electoral mobilization.

[deleted]

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#25

Post by algaeontoast » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #9

Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%

Yeah, I really don’t understand why the bracket of “extreme wealth” is $250k? I’d be all for adding some bracket for earners over $1MM or over a certain amount of capital gains tax. However, a lot of people rely on capital gains for their retirement, so a tax on that money would negatively affect anyone who puts money in the stock market for retirement...

Taxing the super rich is a great idea, but at the end of the day the govt just needs to spend less money on programs that don’t work or aren’t needed.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#26

Post by algaeontoast » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

lobotryas wrote: post #18

dijit wrote: post #9

Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%

No, because it’s easier to go after and strong-arm or pass legislation against a guy earning 250k than a guy earning 250mm.

Yeah, unfortunately this is a sad truth.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#27

Post by hannasanarion » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #6

My issue with all of these discussions is that they invariably present ideas that are just too complicated, and our tax code is just too complicated as it is. Create a system that can be applied evenly, and fairly, from the top to the bottom and then I think you’ve got a great and novel idea.

"evenly" is not the same as "fairly".

If you take 10% from someone making $1000/month, they can't pay their electric bills.

If you take 10% from someone making 1,000,000/month, they have to wait a little longer to buy their third superyacht.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#28

Post by refurb » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

I’d love to see an analysis of who the top 0.01% are, in terms of income.

My guess is the people who make the list this year, drop off the next and never end up on it again.

The top people (again income) are the folks that sell their company or equity stake. It’s a huge windfall, but they never make that much again.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#29

Post by lobotryas » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

hacker_9 wrote: post #8

If you provide a service people want/need, you are going to end up with more money.. It's not rocket science. This is how the capitalist cogs turn.

You are right. What some people want is to punish your success by arbitrarily deciding how much money is “too much” and using taxes to take away what they think you should not have.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#30

Post by algaeontoast » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #16

xwdv wrote: post #4

Every time you talk about the top 1% or even the top 0.01%, you eliminate an opportunity to talk about how you can really help the bottom 50%. By constantly painting things as hopeless and unfair, all you do is stimulate rage.

That rage needs to be there so that we can change the system that produces and perpetuates the unfairness. Rage is a tool for electoral mobilization.

No, it’s not. Rage removes the ability to discuss anything and fuels the “us vs them” mentality which has been proven time and time again to be unhealthy and NOT productive.