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

Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#81

Post by [deleted] »

nugget wrote: post #52
smallnamespace wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to speak directly to your point, which is the claim that only absolute wealth matters, but relative wealth does not . Relative wealth buys you status, position, and power in society. That status protects you when things go wrong, when the system fails to measure or optimize for the things that you care about, or when the music suddenly stops and you find that you're the one left without a chair. People deep…

As I watch pop culture media I can’t help but think that the desire for relative wealth/status is driven primarily by the desire to attract sexual and romantic partners. I don’t think people in their 20s and 30s are as worried about war and famine as they are about being undesirable, unpopular, rejected, and lonely. At least not in the US. I suppose sex tech and AR/VR tech could advance to the point where some of the…

[deleted]

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#82

Post by neilwilson »

caseysoftware wrote: post #10

> I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor and those who can’t work. I find "socially valuable contributions" to be a disturbing phrase. First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable." Second, quite often society is wrong in what "it" values or finds po…

"First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable.""

There is. The opinions of other people in your society - generally expressed via the ballot box in a democracy. All authority is, or should, derive directly from that source of truth.

That's sort of what society is - everybody else. Hence why we have social judgments on what is appropriate - like banning guns and the death penalty - and why we have different countries to encapsulate different views on those social judgments (my country bans the former, yours likely doesn't - but we both take a dim view of marrying off 12 year olds, something other societies are quite relaxed about).

There is no objective truth here. It's all a social creation by a set of people who have chosen to co-operate with each other and call themselves a country.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#83

Post by neilwilson »

helen___keller wrote: post #44
roenxi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your contention that we should only care about minimum living standards requires a large amount of faith, not just in the system as it stands today, but that the system won't slowly erode those minimums over time because the poor lack the political and social power to keep their minimums. Without the power to protect your own interests, you're at the literal mercy of those who are better off than you to throw you a…

> The natural solution to inequality is to disenfranchise the wealthy, which doesn't put food on the table To use an example from the leftmost mainstream politicians in the United States, a current proposal is to enact a wealth tax on fortunes over $X million to fund a larger social safety net. You can argue that ideologically the focus should be on standards of living, not on inequality, but realistically a wealth t…

Why not simply accommodate the savings rather than constantly trying to confiscate them? A dynamic monetary system can do that.

I don't understand this obsession on the left with behaving like Robin Hood. Wealth taxes will not alter the power position of the rich. All it does is get up the nose of the rich and require us to pay those people who want to play Robin Hood.

QE labour hours however, and the power of the wealthy to deny others an income by not spending their haul is removed. They can count their coin and the poor still get to work and eat.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#84

Post by dang »

virmundi wrote: post #38

All of these programs a worthless without draconian restrictions on procreation. As long as you are on assistance you should be prevented from breeding. When bored and poor, reproducing feels productive.

Please don't post flamebait to HN.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#85

Post by CJefferson »

refurb wrote: post #22
CJefferson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is growing every year.

That’s clearly not true, at least in the US. Total compensation has outpaced inflation significantly.

Wages after inflation haven't budged in 44 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent...

I know the UK situation much better than the US situation.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#86

Post by TulliusCicero »

xyzzyz wrote: post #76
TulliusCicero wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially what social democracies do, like in the Nordic countries, and it seems to work great at achieving good results in a variety of societal dimensions. The counter-arguments from fiscal conservatives generally take one of two tacks: either a plainly disingenuous one where they argue that this is somehow only possible in those specific countries (e.g. due to being small and/or relatively homogeneous),…

No, the Nordic countries don't really tax the winners more. The marginal tax rates for top earners there are about the same as in the US. The real difference is that they, along with most other European welfare states, tax the middle class much more than the US does. > either a plainly disingenuous one where they argue that this is somehow only possible in those specific countries (e.g. due to being small and/or rela…

Hmm, is that true?

> So on average, those in the highest earnings bracket will pay 56 percent of their taxable income to the taxman (31 percent in local income tax plus 25 percent in national income tax), but a top earner living in Dorotea would pay 60.15 percent.

https://www.thelocal.se/20180111/does-swedens-tax-system-rea...

That sounds higher than the US. Maybe not that much higher than particularly high tax places like NYC, but compared to the US on average, yeah that sounds high.

That taxes there are also higher on the middle class, yeah I don't dispute that.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#87

Post by virmundi »

dang wrote: post #84
virmundi wrote: post #38

All of these programs a worthless without draconian restrictions on procreation. As long as you are on assistance you should be prevented from breeding. When bored and poor, reproducing feels productive.

Please don't post flamebait to HN.

I’m not. You’re going to have to face hard policy decisions if you are going to do these kind of programs. We should already institute these requirements now.

Please stop flagging ideas that take leftist thought to their authoritarian ends.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#88

Post by xyzzyz »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #86
xyzzyz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Nordic countries don't really tax the winners more. The marginal tax rates for top earners there are about the same as in the US. The real difference is that they, along with most other European welfare states, tax the middle class much more than the US does. > either a plainly disingenuous one where they argue that this is somehow only possible in those specific countries (e.g. due to being small and/or rela…

Hmm, is that true? > So on average, those in the highest earnings bracket will pay 56 percent of their taxable income to the taxman (31 percent in local income tax plus 25 percent in national income tax), but a top earner living in Dorotea would pay 60.15 percent. https://www.thelocal.se/20180111/does-swedens-tax-system-rea... That sounds higher than the US. Maybe not that much higher than particularly high tax place…

Marginal tax rate in places with most top earners, like California and New York, is around 50%, if you add together both federal and state taxes.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#89

Post by zozbot234 »

smallnamespace wrote: post #16
roenxi wrote: post #11

It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards. If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increase…

I'm going to speak directly to your point, which is the claim that only absolute wealth matters, but relative wealth does not . Relative wealth buys you status, position, and power in society. That status protects you when things go wrong, when the system fails to measure or optimize for the things that you care about, or when the music suddenly stops and you find that you're the one left without a chair. People deep…

> Relative wealth buys you status, position, and power in society.

Social cohesion (including political involvement, etc.) buys these things far more effectively than money or any market mechanism. "Relative wealth" is a highly imperfect substitute for high social capital.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#90

Post by helen___keller »

neilwilson wrote: post #83
helen___keller wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The natural solution to inequality is to disenfranchise the wealthy, which doesn't put food on the table To use an example from the leftmost mainstream politicians in the United States, a current proposal is to enact a wealth tax on fortunes over $X million to fund a larger social safety net. You can argue that ideologically the focus should be on standards of living, not on inequality, but realistically a wealth t…

Why not simply accommodate the savings rather than constantly trying to confiscate them? A dynamic monetary system can do that. I don't understand this obsession on the left with behaving like Robin Hood. Wealth taxes will not alter the power position of the rich. All it does is get up the nose of the rich and require us to pay those people who want to play Robin Hood. QE labour hours however, and the power of the we…

I'm not sure I understand what your proposal is but the answer to your question of "why wealth tax", the answer is pretty much because it's simple to convey and rally behind.

Deficit spending (or straight up "money printing") could provide benefits to those who need it without taxation, but decades of political obsession over "how are we gonna pay for it" means that people feel better if a policy of "buy X" is followed by "while taking money from Y to pay for it"

For Republicans, the Y is some nefarious unnamed government bloat or waste, but never military. Most recently it's food stamps, and as I understand it there's a lot of hungry gazes staring at social security and medicaid.

For Democrats, the Y is some nefarious wealthy entity, either Big Corporations or The Rich. So, ambitious far left proposals involve taxing wealth, adding very high marginal tax rates at the top, and taxing corporations and investment vehicles. This is often silly for obvious reasons. For example, Bernie suggests taxing stock transactions, bond trades, and derivatives transactions, by a (low) percentage, which sounds insane personally. But that stocks and derivatives sounds like Evil Wall Street Bullshit to some voters so they eat it up.

Post reply on HN