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

America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 961 posts

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#211

Post by curiousllama »

standardUser wrote: post #59
tengbretson wrote: post #30

In my lifetime some sort of switch has flipped, where the people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something greater or something new, but simply on the assumption that the act of taxing people will inherently make them more equal. Is there a coherent philosophical basis for this train of thought? Is there any historical precedent that increased taxes is what we need to b…

"...people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something..." You should perhaps listen more closely. There are a wide array of programs proposed by people who are advocating for greater taxes on the wealthy. Universal healthcare, free education, a larger social safety net and investments in green energy are a few of the big line items being constantly and loudly discussed.…

Tax the rich is a response to "how are you going to pay for that program?"

That we hear "tax the rich" in isolation these days speaks more to the lack of the prompting question than progressives' dedication to the response.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#213

Post by staticman2 »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #183
tengbretson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with taxing the wealthy though? Do you think the $3.5 trillion spent on covid relief has any relationship whatsoever with tax revenue?

Total billionaire net-worth in the USA is $4 trillion so 1 covid relief would fully tap them out. People are horrible at reasoning about large numbers they think these people have real money compared to the government.

Politicians are cheap to bribe with campaign contributions and political adds and that money is enough to ensure the government will do a poor job of serving the people.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#214

Post by chordalkeyboard »

syops wrote: post #188
exabrial wrote: post #143

Correction: The Government has seized 38% of my wealth by force. The top 1% I gave my money to willingly. One is extortion under the threat of cops wielding violence and jail time. The other is a free choice.

Every government has taxes. Running the government isn’t free. The cost of living in a given society are the taxes and abiding by the system of laws it has. In the U.S. you have the option of leaving if you find the cost too high. You willingly stay here and as such you ought to willingly pay the cost for doing so. Besides, are you certain the amount you pay in tax really ought to be considered yours? It’s strange pe…

> Every government has taxes.

> In the U.S. you have the option of leaving if you find the cost too high.

So you acknowledge that there’s no alternative, but you still act like people have the choice of an alternative.

> This is the system we have developed for people to pay for the privilege of earning in this society.

Some people believe that the freedom to earn a living is a right, not a privilege.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#215

Post by sum_numpty »

tengbretson wrote: post #30

In my lifetime some sort of switch has flipped, where the people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something greater or something new, but simply on the assumption that the act of taxing people will inherently make them more equal. Is there a coherent philosophical basis for this train of thought? Is there any historical precedent that increased taxes is what we need to b…

Equality is a myth. There are good and shitty people across all races, genders, sexualities, etc. What we need to be focused on is equality of opportunity. Taxes are just not enough. We need far more actual health and education resources allocated to those systemically under-represented in social power. That needs to be represented in a transparent manner to all citizens. Then it's a matter of letting the chips fall where they may.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#217

Post by lefrenchy »

nickpp wrote: post #115
natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

Naval had an extremely pertinent tweet [1]: The road to socialism via inflation: • Print money, crash the reserve currency, destroy savers, and force them into inflated assets. • Asset inflation leads to inequality. Demonize asset holders and tax the nominal gains, thereby confiscating the real value of the assets. [1] https://twitter.com/naval/status/1359650086221930496?s=21

This entire take is predicated on the idea that the people in power have something to gain from doing this, since it requires the ruling class to do all of these things. It falls completely flat if you think about the logic beyond trying to make it fit your ideological narrative.

Why would the ruling class (which his tweet presupposes is corrupt), who benefit from this status quo, purposefully destroy the systems that make them rich? It just doesn't make sense, the logic implies that a corrupt ruling class would purposefully destroy the systems that allow them to be corrupt in order to achieve "socialism" (which Naval clearly implies is somehow innately corrupt here). Why would they destroy what they benefit from on purpose?

Ruling classes benefit from stability, if people are not starving and live generally decent/free lives they won't search above for answers or be inclined to upheaval.

> destroy savers, and force them into inflated assets.

I don't understand this part, isn't it a broad consensus in the US that savings should not be in cash but instead in a diverse set of assets and bonds? How does inflating assets destroy savers in this case? Every time I hear advice on saving in the US it's basically (take anything above emergency fund savings and invest it in ETFs/index funds/bonds)

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#218

Post by majormajor »

readams wrote: post #88
klmadfejno wrote: post #18

"But poor people have iphones now" when people can't afford food, healthcare, or any leisure time is the 2021 equivalent of "Let them eat cake". The balance of wealth is insulting when we have so many basic needs not being met for those at the bottom "Stealing" is a word that gets knee jerk reactions. But the more polite way to phrase it is that the rich benefit from societal structure 1000x more than the poor and ar…

The question is, based on standard of living, would you rather be poor now or some time in the past? I don't think there's anyone who would choose the past.

Poor is a loose word, but there are quite a few people I grew up with who do basically the same job as their parents yet can't afford as much of a house as their parents did at the same age and have less future financial security (retirement savings, pensions, whatever) as their parents did at the same age.

Their TV is bigger, but they're also much more stressed about their security...

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#219

Post by jimbokun »

tengbretson wrote: post #30

In my lifetime some sort of switch has flipped, where the people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something greater or something new, but simply on the assumption that the act of taxing people will inherently make them more equal. Is there a coherent philosophical basis for this train of thought? Is there any historical precedent that increased taxes is what we need to b…

That didn't happen in your lifetime, progressive taxation goes back farther than that.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#220

Post by danans »

mindslight wrote: post #154
JamesLeonis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this wasn't the federal bailouts. Those are an entirely different beast. It's talking strictly about income stagnation. The study shows that if wages kept up with productivity (as was the case in the immediate post-WW2 era) the bottom 90% would earn $2.5 trillion per year more. > We document the cumulative effect of four decades of income growth below the growth of per capita gross national income and estimate…

Even with income remaining stagnant, the prices for goods and services should have been continually going down due to technology and outsourcing. Price optimization is the fundamental mechanic of any market! For example, when most manufacturing was moving to China the promise was that it would benefit consumers via lower prices. However the Fed's overt policy is to erase these gains by printing money via low interest…

> Even with income remaining stagnant, the prices for goods and services should have been continually going down due to technology and outsourcing.

The price for goods did go down. Everything from food to toys to tools got much cheaper than it was before.

However, the price for cornerstone needs that govern access to opportunity - i.e. healthcare, housing, education, physical security - and the percentage of income and average net worth that these consume went up dramatically.

Furthermore, these things became ever more correlated with each other, meaning that if you have bad access to one, you are likely to have bad access to the others, and if you have great access to one, you likely have great access to the others.

But sure, it's never been cheaper to buy random widget X at a big box store.

Post reply on HN