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

591–600 of 961 posts

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

#591

Post by ska »

refurb wrote: post #580
ska wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is what you would expect, no? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, can you elaborate?

Check the percentage of total income vs. percentage of total taxes paid. The system has become more progressive even ignoring the increase in income.

How can you ignore the increase in income?

I'm not claiming I know what is actually happening in the US, it's complicated and I haven't spent enough time looking at it to be confident.

However, it's true that if there is a) an increase in total income that b) is entirely captured by a small percentage of people, then naturally their share of the total income tax paid will increase and everyone else's will decrease as a fraction unless the system is regressive in some way.

"Progressive" here doesn't mean higher earners pay more in aggregate, it means (by definition) that their marginal rates are higher that people with lower income.

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

#592

Post by neximo64 »

I don't get this obsession with the movement or whatever that gets behind these articles.

6% of the worlds population of (Aus, NZ, Canada, UK, US) owns over 50% of its wealth. The argument is always about why a fraction of that 6% that takes money from whats remaining of that 6%.

The actual problem is not really anywhere near the fractions of that 6% that grabs headlines. I would also look at anyone who is in that 6% complain about wealth inequality with a confused look on my face. It is such a divisive topic that can get anyone riled up and it completely misses reality.

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

#593

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Apocryphon wrote: post #531
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't evade taxes, so you're welcome to my surplus. The taxes were already accounted for, my claim is on top of what you already contributed. > By all means, please expound upon the victims of violence caused by taxpaying in modern day America. Its all very simple, if you don’t give them what they want, they threaten you at first and then they come take what they want. > Are you referring to This isn’t helpful. >…

> The taxes were already accounted for, my claim is on top of what you already contributed. Not according to you, as you view taxes as inherently illegitimate. Though if you have a Patreon or GoFundMe to validate your claim then by all means. > Its all very simple, if you don’t give them what they want, they threaten you at first and then they come take what they want. If you don't wear clothes, you'd be arrested for…

> Not according to you, as you view taxes as inherently illegitimate. Though if you have a Patreon or GoFundMe to validate your claim then by all means.

I’m responding to taxes the way you responded to my request for some of your surplus. You’re asserting you already paid taxes, you don’t get to decide how much tax you pay.

> If you don't wear clothes, you'd be arrested for public indecency.

I concede that laws requiring clothing are akin to taxation in that one group of people imposes their values on another group without their consent.

> Then say you don't believe in society.

I’m fine with society, I disagree with you that taxation is necessary for society.

> Then why not give away property, as well? There are arguments to be made that private property violates the NAP.

Property is a consequence of animalian territorial instincts and human tool-using instincts. If someone can articulate a coherent vision of a property-less society, others are welcome to join them.

Mostly the problem is that the people who challenge notions of property rights seem to be motivated by the prospect of obtaining the property of others who would prefer to retain it. In essence, they don’t have a problem with property, but with certain people’s ownership of certain things because they would rather that other people own those same things.

> Despite its unanswerable nature, it is still quite enjoyable.

Glad you’re enjoying it and likewise.

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

#594

Post by TrinaryWorksToo »

WalterBright wrote: post #586
pembrook wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing against you personally. I'm just refuting your idea that Fed actions from the 2010s are responsible for wealth inequality that has been rising since the 1970s. So how do you explain everything that happened on the wealth inequality front from the 1970s up to the financial crisis of 2009? I don't agree with everything in the original article either, but many of the points it made are correct.

> how do you explain everything that happened on the wealth inequality front from the 1970s up to the financial crisis of 2009? In one word: computers. In tsunami after tsunami from 1975 to the present, computers have revolutionized everything we do. I remember one tsunami in 1975, when slide rules in September were $125 and by December they were $5 and in January they disappeared. The calculator had arrived. In 1980…

> and those smart enough to have invested in them.

Correction: Wealthy enough to be able to invest in them.

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

#595

Post by holografix »

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…

The complete collapse of the financial markets would not have been good for anyone.

Why the perpetrators are not in jail is what on my opinion is the true betrayal of the common person.

I strongly believe the rise of the alt/far right is a direct byproduct of the complete disintegration of trust in the established political class.

All over the world atypical politicians rose in popularity, even when they weren’t populist right wingers.

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

#596

Post by nickff »

jandrese wrote: post #437
fiftyfifty wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that the 3 things you give as an example have sky rocketed in cost not because of the 1%, but mostly due to government interference in the free market. Government backed loans have driven up the cost of education and housing. Local governments limiting housing construction have further driven up the cost in many areas. Government created monopolies like the AMA have driven up the cost of healthcare.

> Government backed loans have driven up the cost of education and housing Yes, housing would be cheaper if 40% of the population were living on the street because they couldn't afford a mortgage. Lots more supply to go around. Blaming the AMA for healthcare costs is a unique take. While I can't say they are completely innocent, they are absolutely not a major factor in your insurance quote.

Most healthcare expenditure goes to paying wages; doctors and nurses' wages make up a very large proportion of insurance expenditures, and their respective associations have successfully restricted supply to drive up their wages. The AMA is doing a very good job of making doctor's salaries in the USA much higher than in most of the developed world.

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

#597

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

salmonellaeater wrote: post #232

The framing in the article is ahistorical. The post-WW2 period was a period of exceptionally _low_ inequality. If you look back to just the 1800s there were swings in inequality comparable to the present day. We're now moving back to the historical baseline. There are some contributing factors to the shift in inequality, a major one being that labor is now oversupplied compared to the post-war period, and the competi…

A Farewell to Alms & Capital in the 21st Century give a lot of insight into this as well.

More importantly - the _low_ inequality was really only in the US. Ever since the beginning of agriculture, the world has grown steadily more unequal. It peaked in the Belle Epoch in France (leading up to WW1), and we've recently sky-rocketed past that level.

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

#598

Post by harry8 »

airstrike wrote: post #509
cmmeur01 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we haven't been experiencing inflation? I guess it's just me seeing all the real items in the economy skyrocket in price. But I guess when you can just readjust the definition and what's included it doesn't matter. The fed won't be able to raise interest rates without crushing the same people they were lowered to support.

> So we haven't been experiencing inflation? I guess it's just me seeing all the real items in the economy skyrocket in price. We have not. Your impression of prices doesn't necessarily correlate with actual inflation.

Inflation is the idea of prices accross the board going up. If you've experienced prices going up that does not indicate inflation. The second statement can only be true if your expereince is unrepresentative of the wider population for which you are discussing inflation. That wider population is usually considered to be people paid in the same currency.

Well I guess wages usually go up for the same kind of job with the same experience when there's considered to be "inflation" and that really hasn't happened. Prices. Yes, they've gone up consistently, haven't we all seen the hard reality of that? And they show no signs of doing anything else. Price indexes used as a proxy measure of inflation may not be capturing that reality. Is it deliberate that the measure is failing to capture the reality? Or is it just poor baskets of goods and services in the index and a lack of will and talent to correct the issue? Anyone arguing about index values and what they mean still has to have a roof over their head quite literally at the end of the day. That has a cost. I haven't noticed the cost going down over any 5 year period. Then look at the cost of eating. Then the captial equipment you need for your job and to be able to pay required bills (some of clothes, vehicle, computing devices). Then look at essential consumables (some of fuel, food, electricity, telecomunications).

I can't see anything other than high inflation and a decrease in disposable income. Note that if you get promoted and get a raise for a new position the reference is how much /that position/ was paid previously not what you were paid fresh out of $whatever.

I don't ever see a measurement that reflects the reality we all see, experience and have to budget in inflation discussions in finance nor do I see a justification of why it's just plain wrong and in so far as these numbers represent anything they represent something else entirely other than the purchasing power of a dollar in your pocket this year as opposed some time in the past.

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

#599

Post by hindsightbias »

pembrook wrote: post #480

> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…

We should just reset everyones 401k to what their 2008 values would be after GM, airlines and their suppliers were sent to bankruptcy court. Smash the last unions, wipe out pension funds... quite the libertarian utopia we could all be living in today.

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

#600

Post by throwaway0a5e »

sum_numpty wrote: post #215
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…

Just FYI you said "equality of opportunity" and went on to describe "equality of outcome".
Post reply on HN