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

931–940 of 961 posts

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

#931

Post by fuzzfactor »

syops wrote: post #447
exabrial wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It came at such a great cost in fact. The vast majority of your taxes are simply wasted. If the US Government were on Charity Navigator they would have a 0-star rating. It'a absurd to defend such a position, especially one rooted in a traditional of violence via arguments that were used to justify the enslavement of entire races.

We aren’t talking about whether the tax rate should be lower or better spent. We are talking about whether or not they ought to exist at all. Bringing in, now, the fact that some are wasted is not relevant to the discussion. The arguments for taxation have nothing to do with the arguments for slavery. This is a false equivalence.

If you could do the math, there are millions of Americans whose ancestors accomplished so much over so many generations, both before and after income taxes were first levied, that if one year's worth of collected income taxes would have been invested wisely right there on Wall Street as early as possible there would be no income taxes necessary at all by now.

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

#932

Post by fuzzfactor »

parasubvert wrote: post #488

The amount of upvoted goldbug and Bitcoin cranks pushing their theories as fact and deriding mainstream macroeconomics is pretty appalling.

not my downvote, but

Mainstream macroeconomics has not an accurately developed foundation, more appalling than ever as it progresses on its own.

Gold and Bitcoin fantasies can not further deride something that is self-deprecating due to poor math.

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

#933

Post by fuzzfactor »

dragonwriter wrote: post #621
f38zf5vdt wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this all started when the US went off the gold standard then?

No, the oil shocks of the 1970s were short term disruptions which unsettled things, but the big durable change was the major tax burden shift under Reagan.

>the oil shocks of the 1970s were short term disruptions which unsettled things

Which led to the removal of the gold standard by those who knew the outcome would proceed as it has.

If Reagan didn't shift the tax burden the very wealthy would not have been able to recover their massive losses as rapidly.

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

#934

Post by fuzzfactor »

jkhdigital wrote: post #559
notahacker wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This narrative also has the effect of deflecting attention from other policies which contribute towards inequality an awful lot more. It's not like the majority of recorded history on the Gold Standard was noted for the bottom 90% enjoying relatively large shares of national wealth and income security.

It’s not a “narrative,” it is an economic theory with substantial evidentiary support that deserves serious consideration by policy makers.

It's never been merely a theory among those it actually happened to.

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

#935

Post by fuzzfactor »

01100011 wrote: post #665
f38zf5vdt wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, paradoxically, the economic golden era of post-WW2 United States from 1946-1969 was entirely on a gold standard.

Yes, the period following massive government debt spending during WWII. There are unique economic and demographic factors specific to that era.

The US could not have won the war without the wealth that still remained within the "fully backed" dollar even after all the shenanigans that had been pulled on the general citizens devaluing the dollar up to that point.

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

#936

Post by fuzzfactor »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #726
pembrook wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was replying to OP's claims that the Federal Reserve is the "evil puppet master" behind wealth inequality. This is patently false. Inequality has been expanding since the 1970s, long before the "evil bank bailouts" and accommodative monetary policy of the 2010s Federal Reserve.

I'm confused about the nitpicking in this thread about who the boogie-men are -- the Fed, Congress, the rich, etc. We do know these are all the same group of people, right? Same social strata, same schools, same manners, same wealth, same worldview, etc. Party makes little difference here -- R's and D's are just two right-wing parties who mainly serve special interests (industry). Clinton gutted working people as muc…

Maybe that's why they used to call their political party the Democratic-Republicans?

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

#937

Post by fuzzfactor »

mbroncano wrote: post #845
username90 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like progress stopped, not that it reversed. When things are stable you'd expect that a bit less than 50% are richer than their parents.

I find it difficult to believe that progress stopped at some point in the later 70's

This is by design.

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

#938

Post by chordalkeyboard »

onethought wrote: post #907
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They generated the money by allocating it to a process that was productive. > whatever they allocated it to did. Machines are inanimate.

I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Church of capitalism might have convinced to otherwise. But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...

> I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers.

There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at.

> The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point.

Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people.

> But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...

If you pay me and my worker’s comp insurance then you can say “we carried 10kg up the mountain” because I wouldn’t have done it for free or without insurance.

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

#939

Post by Railsify »

jandrese wrote: post #433
Railsify wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The return on capital is always greater than the return on labor. Piketty does a great data driven analysis on this in his book Capital in the 21st century. This phenomenon was occurring long before the US was even a glimmer.

I've never understood why the capital gains tax is lower than the labor tax. The labor tax is theoretically adding value to the economy while capital gains is basically money you made because you had money. It seems to me it should be the opposite if you want a productive economy, encourage more people to put their money to work instead of playing games in the market.

It's not because "you had money" simply having money results in 0 taxes. The capital gain comes when you lend your money to some other entity and they use the money to do work: produce a good, provide a service. Although there is a sect in the US government that wants to tax your money simply because you have it.

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

#940

Post by fuzzfactor »

namelessoracle wrote: post #111
edoceo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kulak is on Wikipedia ""During the Russian Revolution, the label of kulak was used to chastise peasants who withheld grain from the Bolsheviks. According to Marxist–Leninist political theories of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants"" TIL.

I think the oxford definition conveys it better "a peasant in Russia wealthy enough to own a farm and hire labor. Emerging after the emancipation of serfs in the 19th century the kulaks resisted Stalin's forced collectivization, but millions were arrested, exiled, or killed." IOW. The middle class. Small business owners. People who have acquired a tiny amount of capital.

They were one step above serfdom and that was too close for comfort of the ruling class, even though they were not Tsarist any more.

So they were snuffed no differently than a Tsar would have done.

Post reply on HN