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

Welcome to the New Middle Ages

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#21

Post by jwess »

nostromo wrote: post #4

Growth in inequality correlates very nicely with expansion of the money supply. My theory is that when you print money, most of the new money finds its way into the pockets of the rich. Even though we print new money to pay for government spending (via bonds) - eventually all that new money trickles up to people that own assets. And the people that own the most assets gain the most new money. I think we should return…

I'm not sure if it's realistic to offset all our printing with increases in taxation. I think the money trickles up exactly the way you described, and I agree that government programs should be paid for by taxation instead of money printing--but what can be taxed to make up the multi-trillion dollar difference?

Consider that the federal government collected revenues of $3.5 trillion in 2019, or more than $10,000 for every person in the country. State revenues combined were more than $1 trillion in 2019, for a total average tax liability of about $13,600 per-capita. I don't see a realistic way to double or triple that revenue number while taxing income alone (and citizens would naturally demand a commensurate increase in government services if such a tax increase applied at lower-income levels).

Taxing wealth or ownership in companies is another route, but individuals who own any notable percentage of a public company are naturally very mobile, and could easily change their country of residence to somewhere more tax-friendly (like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt may be planning).

It seems like a difficult position to be in for the government.

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#22

Post by QuesnayJr »

happytoexplain wrote: post #9
QuesnayJr wrote: post #7

Can we not turn Hacker News into a cut-rate Reddit? The world has enough outlets for endless culture war.

I see mostly interesting thoughts so far, which I'll find almost nowhere else. There's comparatively little warring. Frankly, I think your kind of comment hurts HN more - it's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I see the exact same kinds of comments I find at Reddit. And I already know where to find those kinds of comments. I probably see someone blame inequality on the Fed about once a day, for example.

It's a slippery slope, but more and more the politics that has completely devoured American culture is beginning to consume this site as well. I am completely sympathetic to the idea that inequality is a problem, but HN used to be one of the few sites with substantive discussions that you could get away from politics. It's still mostly that, but that has been slipping away over the last few months. And that is a genuine tragedy in an angry and divided world.

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#23

Post by [deleted] »

roenxi wrote: post #18
taurath wrote: post #5

Let’s simply return to the 1950s, in terms of tax policy. The rich have won to the point of not being able to fail. The idea that poor people aren't working hard enough is the most toxic thought. If you’re a software engineer making a few hundred k a year, this isn’t even talking about you. You have more in common with someone making $10 an hour than the executives that run your companies. Go look at some photos or d…

> Let’s simply return to the 1950s, in terms of tax policy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Federal_... I dunno, 1800-1940 looks pretty promising. The high taxes of 1950-2020 doesn't seem to have done much for making people happy. I'm always happy to start a fight - I reckon the biggest impact of things like the 1950-2020 tax regime is a bunch of factories to China. Obviously there is a lot more g…

[deleted]

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#24

Post by voisin »

jwess wrote: post #21
nostromo wrote: post #4

Growth in inequality correlates very nicely with expansion of the money supply. My theory is that when you print money, most of the new money finds its way into the pockets of the rich. Even though we print new money to pay for government spending (via bonds) - eventually all that new money trickles up to people that own assets. And the people that own the most assets gain the most new money. I think we should return…

I'm not sure if it's realistic to offset all our printing with increases in taxation. I think the money trickles up exactly the way you described, and I agree that government programs should be paid for by taxation instead of money printing--but what can be taxed to make up the multi-trillion dollar difference? Consider that the federal government collected revenues of $3.5 trillion in 2019, or more than $10,000 for…

> I'm not sure if it's realistic to offset all our printing with increases in taxation. I think the money trickles up exactly the way you described, and I agree that government programs should be paid for by taxation instead of money printing--but what can be taxed to make up the multi-trillion dollar difference?

You either pay for it up front via taxation or later via inflation (increase in money supply). You are focused on increasing revenue but why not exercise some restraint and, oh I dunno, cut back on the ridiculous military overspending that doesn’t improve quality of life for the people paying the taxes?

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#26

Post by dumpsterdiver »

happytoexplain wrote: post #8
h7b6f8j8hug wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with reasonable answers probably would rather not respond, but politely excuse themselves and give it all a miss.

Why? It sounds like you're making the assumption that the parent's topic of conversation is already automatically toxic, and therefore impossible for reasonable people to want to discuss.

A topic of conversation doesn't have to be toxic to cause reasonable people to avoid engaging with it. There is nuance in every subject, and pursuing those unknown details requires energy. Sometimes people don't have energy available to commit to a highly nuanced subject because they have other obligations.

One way of excusing yourself from such a conversation in a (hopefully) unoffensive way would be to make an honest statement like, "Gosh, my brain is so overworked right now that I can't even begin to delve into the nuance of that subject, but I hear where you're coming from."

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#27

Post by rektide »

QuesnayJr wrote: post #7

Can we not turn Hacker News into a cut-rate Reddit? The world has enough outlets for endless culture war.

This article seems quite neutral to me?

It seems like a discussion of the world and what is happening. There is some reporting on the distribution of incomes. Those facts don't seem like they are meant to embroil us in cultural conflict though.

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#28

Post by Technically »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #26
happytoexplain wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It sounds like you're making the assumption that the parent's topic of conversation is already automatically toxic, and therefore impossible for reasonable people to want to discuss.

A topic of conversation doesn't have to be toxic to cause reasonable people to avoid engaging with it. There is nuance in every subject, and pursuing those unknown details requires energy. Sometimes people don't have energy available to commit to a highly nuanced subject because they have other obligations. One way of excusing yourself from such a conversation in a (hopefully) unoffensive way would be to make an hone…

> A topic of conversation doesn't have to be toxic to cause reasonable people to avoid engaging with it.

Sure, until people realize that politics have the capacity to impact their lives negatively, and then all of a sudden the rationality for discussing it is quite clear.

> One way of excusing yourself from such a conversation in a (hopefully) unoffensive way would be to make an honest statement like, "Gosh, my brain is so overworked right now that I can't even begin to delve into the nuance of that subject, but I hear where you're coming from."

I wouldn't characterize this as a polite excuse so much as an honest admittance—you clearly respect the other person enough to indicate an acknowledgement of the meaning of what they're saying and an incapacity to respond. That is, unless you're lying, which is clearly disrespectful. In that case a "I don't agree but I feel like it's unprofessional to engage in these conversations" would suffice.

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#29

Post by californical »

bleepblorp wrote: post #20
californical wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s really a middle ground. Yes, a large majority of the wealthy people did get there by working hard, and being disciplined with money. And that’s good. And if you’re really successful, you should be able to help ensure your kids are successful too, and money helps with that. You deserve that for your hard work. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere of how wealthy you can get before it’s “too much” and has…

> I think it’s really a middle ground. Yes, a large majority of the wealthy people did get there by working hard, and being disciplined with money. That depends on how you define 'wealthy.' There is a vast gulf between the kind of money people of sound mind and body can get through hard work and the degree of wealth the truly rich actually own. The guy who grew up in a ghetto but is now making a six figure income (an…

Yeah, that ties in to the second part of my comment — it’s really a question of where to draw the line.

I’m a semi-follower of the FIRE idea, so I come in with that perspective. But it would be great to be able to build enough wealth that working becomes optional, and that I can help fund a future child in kick-starting their own company at a young age. My wealth then largely has come from my hard work, but I can also use that to further my kid’s success (in a responsible way). Isn’t that what every parent wants?

The situation where that kid becomes a billionaire is an edge-case of just two generations in a row of disciplined and fairly lucky individuals. There’s nothing wrong or immoral with anyone in that scenario.

Society then has to draw that line, where if my daughter becomes a multi-billionaire, how much of that wealth gets taxed and distributed to the people who it would help.

Re: Welcome to the New Middle Ages

#30

Post by taurath »

roenxi wrote: post #18
taurath wrote: post #5

Let’s simply return to the 1950s, in terms of tax policy. The rich have won to the point of not being able to fail. The idea that poor people aren't working hard enough is the most toxic thought. If you’re a software engineer making a few hundred k a year, this isn’t even talking about you. You have more in common with someone making $10 an hour than the executives that run your companies. Go look at some photos or d…

> Let’s simply return to the 1950s, in terms of tax policy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Federal_... I dunno, 1800-1940 looks pretty promising. The high taxes of 1950-2020 doesn't seem to have done much for making people happy. I'm always happy to start a fight - I reckon the biggest impact of things like the 1950-2020 tax regime is a bunch of factories to China. Obviously there is a lot more g…

> The high taxes of 1950-2020 doesn't seem to have done much for making people happy.

The interstate highway system for one. We have tons of “new” infrastructure that is expensive to maintain.

Also - the military, healthcare and social security is where almost all of the federal budget goes. If you take social security “out” as basically an investment account then it’s nearly all healthcare and military.

We spend more on the military than the next top 7 countries combined.

We also have the highest cost healthcare per capita in the world and not even top 20 outcomes.

Infrastructure that could change the trajectory of whole communities is almost a rounding error.

Post reply on HN