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

Just Be Rich

keenen.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#541

Post by Kosirich »

I think that there is something that is being overlooked here and not mentioned by Paul G. nor Keenen and that is the source of income of the new upper class. I'm not talking here about select few at the top but the few thousands that follow. This is very much in focus of the new book by Branko Milanovic where he emphasizes that the source of income for the upper class changed from being mostly income from capital to being both income of capital and labor. I will quote him directly.

Branko Milanovic:"Homoploutia is a neologism I invented (after some consultation w/my Greek friends). It indicates that the same people (homo) are wealthy (ploutia) is the space of capital & labor; your neighborly CEO who is in the top 1% by labor income and also in the top 1% by shares he owns."

Re: Just Be Rich

#542

Post by Tepix »

refurb wrote: post #527
xbpx wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of a tiny wealth tax that is already lower than in many other countries? You think a relatively well off individual from a less wealthy country facing many systemic problems for business will pass up the opportunity to migrate to the US because they may need to pay a couple percent if they strike gold?

I mean, isn’t that exactly what Singapore did to attract talent and capital? And it worked? And didn’t one of the Facebook founders give up his US citizenship and move there? Sure it’s one case, but it’s evidence at least some are motivated by taxes. Sure, not every founder will make that choice and not right away, but you could see a slow shift over decades to more tax friendly locations.

You may be right. A small number of startups may be founded elsewhere. But the large income from a wealth tax likely provides a greater benefit. We've had a wealth tax in the past. It worked. The only reason why it got removed was because the super rich used their vast influence. It's not something that's in the public's best interest.

Re: Just Be Rich

#543

Post by etripe »

WalterBright wrote: post #281
d_silin wrote: post #7

A lot of people who are just as smart and motived as Elon Musk or Steve Jobs will never be able to start their own companies and get rich. Because they have family obligations that take priority. Because they live outside high-income countries. Because they have no access to support network, so when they fail, they fall all the way to bottom. Because they may have made a crippling mistake in their pasts that now prev…

It's never been easier to start a company in the US. All you need is a computer. You can create a product on it and reach a worldwide audience, all for free. As for Jobs, he started Apple for a few hundred bucks. It's a pretty low bar.

Don't underestimate the tremendous advantage both Wozniak and Bill Gates had even having access to computers at the time. And that access was simply not available to most people.

Similarly, "all you need is a computer" is still very much an indicator of privilege on a global level. Good luck if you live in a favella in Brazil or slums in South Africa or India. It is easier than it was in the 70s, but by no means universally available.

Re: Just Be Rich

#544

Post by incrudible »

"...keep in mind this is the same guy who argued against a wealth tax."

Everybody with a semblance of economic literacy should recognize that a wealth tax causes a lot of problems for what little income it creates. It is a distraction.

For the past decades, wealth inequality has been driven by asset price inflation, which is caused by the easy money policy required to finance government, corporate and private debt.

If interest rates were raised significantly, trillions would disappear off the balance sheets of all the billionaires. Immediately, all of us would be "more equal". The dollar would appreciate, and purchasing power would be restored to the average wage earner. Buying a house would become feasible again.

There's just one catch: Raising interest rates makes existing debt unservicable, causing a massive wave of bankruptcies and layoffs. At some point, even the US would have to default on its debt. The only way to avoid that would be to just print the money - and then we're back at square one.

Re: Just Be Rich

#545

Post by timwaagh »

nindalf wrote: post #151

OP mentions PG’s article arguing against a wealth tax. That article is short, simple and to the point - Modelling a Wealth Tax ( http://www.paulgraham.com/wtax.html ). It is so compelling, but also misleading and wrong. Its not easy to spot the sleights of hand he uses. I wrote more about it here - Modelling a Wealth Tax Correctly ( https://blog.nindalf.com/posts/wealth-tax/ ). And yet, I think the simplicity of PG’s…

In the Netherlands we already have wealth tax (capital gains tax, but doesn't care whether you gained or not). It's nothing particularly disruptive. We still have the most wealth inequality in all the world. It might be a bit pointless to tax wealth in addition to capital gains though. You could just raise the former instead.

Re: Just Be Rich

#547

Post by foxhop »

Did you know Bill Gates owns 51% of the USA farmland? He has it safely tucked away into a trust so that his "will" will be law even after death.

I reject this.

Re: Just Be Rich

#548

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

missedthecue wrote: post #87
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #56

"tons of people are struggling to meet their basic needs" That's just not true. There are billions less people struggling to meet their basic needs now, than there was in 1982. World is much more equal now than it was in 1982.

Even in the US, the bottom quartile of Americans makes more money than they did in 1982, adjusted for inflation.

Putting money aside, in terms of quality of life, we are definitely well ahead. Remember, you had to spend a day in a public library, to answer a question, that you can now lookup in seconds. (Intentionally not using a verb derived from a name of a certain advertisement company).

Re: Just Be Rich

#549

Post by chrisseaton »

lou1306 wrote: post #539
McScroogy wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich outbidding poor people is not what is causing a housing shortage. There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Even if you assume that every rich person keeps a number of spare houses, there are not enough rich people to cause a housing shortage.

The comment was about house owning, though. Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes, it wasn't always like this.

> Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes

Something like 60% of US people own a home. 30% even own their home completely outright, with no mortgage.

Obviously 30%, let alone 60%, of the population cannot be considered 'upper class', and 'middle class' is probably even a stretch.

The home ownership rate seems broadly stable since the 60s to me, with gentle ups and downs with the economy, so as well as saying home ownership is an upper-class or middle-class thing not being true it's also not the case that 'it wasn't always like this'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S...

Re: Just Be Rich

#550

Post by TeMPOraL »

muzani wrote: post #470
TeMPOraL wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, this story is also exactly what Uber did to every market it expanded to.

Is it irony? They all think they're slaying monsters.

No, that's just the marketing bullshit they peddle to the masses. Uber didn't accidentally become the rolling ethical and legal disaster it's been for the past 7+ years. Illegal activity was literally their business model from the very first moment they introduced UberX.
Post reply on HN