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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#671

Post by CountDrewku »

flexie wrote: post #274
Barrin92 wrote: post #49

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

Protestant zealotry? Seriously? When you bring religion into it, at least get the religion right: The Google founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, had Jewish backgrounds but consider themselves non-religious. Facebook founder Zuckerberg had Jewish background and considered himself atheist at some point. Microsoft founder Bill Gates is Catholic. Paul Allen had Jewish parents. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was raised Catho…

He's comparing the zealotry they're displaying which is similar to Protestantism. It's not saying they are Protestants. I think you missed the metaphor. There's most certainly a cult-like religious element that's being displayed in silicon valley right now. That innate human behavior isn't relegated to old Abrahamic religions. People will get drawn into "worshiping" different things and there's a very specific "God" being worshipped by these companies.

Re: Just Be Rich

#672

Post by ashtonkem »

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…

One of the best satirical articles on SV I’ve ever read[0] nailed this exact subject perfectly:

> Having figured out a font and mastered Altman’s Ratio, your next step is to find something to say. For outsiders this can seem daunting, but it’s very easy, since every one of Silicon Valley’s self-styled radicals thinks exactly the same way. In fact, when you study their output carefully, you’ll find endless variations on the same three ideas:

> Free speech is under attack.

> A wealth tax is a bad idea.

> To beat China, America must not become France.

0 - https://thebaffler.com/salvos/how-to-become-an-intellectual-...

Re: Just Be Rich

#673

Post by filleduchaos »

RJuall wrote: post #639
timwaagh wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A quick look at Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... ) shows that the Netherlands does not have the most wealth inequality in the world. What an odd assertion.

What's odd is that you've chosen to look up income inequality as opposed to the clearly stated wealth inequality as though they mean the same thing.

Re: Just Be Rich

#674

Post by filleduchaos »

Kbelicius wrote: post #600
timwaagh wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We still have the most wealth inequality in all the world. No you don't, not even close. Where did you get that idea?

Statistics, most likely. (And yes, they do.)

Re: Just Be Rich

#675

Post by enkid »

laurent92 wrote: post #605
adriancr wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The aristocrats and oligarchs of the olden days might have been corrupt, debauched and half-useless, but at least they knew it. Corruption is an incredible poverty multiplier, combined with debauched and half-useless is just insane. Living in a society led by such people isn't fair by any means. Arrogant new wealth is 100x better then old corrupt wealth that only seeks to entrench itself and friends. New wealth in…

Entrenched money stabilizes the world. Imagine putting 10% of the billionaires of the world on a boat, those who pull the strings of their empires to keep their nations into status-quo, and imagine the boat sinks. A year later, all those entrenched interests dematerialize, fewer powers hold people together, diplomacy isn’t as balanced as it has been when billionaires weighed in, and war starts. That’s the story of th…

First, the Titanic sunk in 1912. Second, these are two events that happened around the same time. That does not mean they are at all related. Titanic primarily carried American and British passengers. The start of World War I primarily involved Austria, Serbia, Germany, and Russia. It's hard to see how British or American Millionaires would have influenced those events to stop the war.

Re: Just Be Rich

#676

Post by jimbokun »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #583
sturgill wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one’s taxes only went to pay for this small subset of items, I think your argument would be stronger. A 40% marginal tax rate is not earmarked for these essential services, as evidenced by our decaying infrastructure despite the US government bringing in $3.5 trillion in tax receipts in 2019. The political left has been pretty clear that the aim isn’t solely a focus on essential (and shared) resources, but on incr…

Social safety nets contribute to earned wealth too, just less directly.

Citation?

Last time I checked, incomes are far higher in US, than in more socialized countries like in Western Europe.

Re: Just Be Rich

#677

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

One big issue i have with this article is that it states:

"Paul paints a rosy picture but doesn't mention that incomes for lower and middle-class families have fallen since the 80s."

And then goes on to present wealth charts.

However, wealth =! income.

The pew research source of data which is here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/02/21/appendi...

Points to this article from the fed: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/weal...

which defines wealth = "difference between the market value of assets owned by a family and the amount owed in debts..."

OR restated succinctly, household assets - liabilities.

The definition from the fed says nothing on income.

Now that we can state the problem the author has cited is regarding wealth inequality, let's talk about it.

One would expect wealth inequality to keep growing, perhaps infinitely, since the people earning income to buy more wealth (w2s , 1099s) have to contend with a continuously depreciating currency, which is not a problem for longtime wealth holders.

Inflation alone does not hurt stocks, real estate owners, etc. It hurts pensioners and labor directly, though.

Re: Just Be Rich

#678

Post by p49k »

px43 wrote: post #664
yarcob wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't a "housing shortage". The problem is that interest rates are so low, so everyone who has a bit of money on the side tries to invest in the real estate market. The result is that for every house thats sold, there isn't just someone who wants it as a living space, but also 5 people who want it as an investment. So 5 people outbid each other, the highest bidder gets it, and then the sucker who wanted t…

My brilliant* idea to solve the real estate problem is to tax the hell out of properties that are sitting empty. Something like a 2x or 3x multiplier on property taxes or something, especially in densely populated areas, and especially in areas where there is rampant housing insecurity. The tax needs to be greater than the potential gamble of waiting for occupants. This should be both for residential and commercial u…

This exists in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the richest people once again find ways out of it, such as claiming the unit is uninhabitable due to renovation, and proceeding with the slowest and most inefficient renovation process imaginable.

Re: Just Be Rich

#679

Post by toomuchredbull »

While there are real problems with poverty, there is also a real problem with a generation that doesn't believe in hard work at all, exemplified by the "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps LOL" of the author. Hard work get you far and it is time spoiled youth in the west remembered it.

Re: Just Be Rich

#680

Post by wing-_-nuts »

missedthecue wrote: post #69
donnythecroc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is all down to the basic human need of a home. In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. Now, literally zero chance. Because homes have become an asset class and the rich can outbid regular people so they are pushed out. That's the problem. I couldn't care less how many billionaires there are if regular people can afford a decent…

Homes in the US today are much larger than they were in the 1970s. About 2x as large! Per square foot, the average home is actually cheaper today than it was then, inflation adjusted, and this isn't even factoring in the modern 2.2% mortgage rates vs the 13% mortgage rates of those days.

Square footage is more a function of what builders are willing to build than what people actually want. Try getting a 1200 sq ft 2bd/2ba built today. Builders will laugh at you. All they want to build are large mcMansions and 'luxury' apartments, because that's where the profit margins are. There are in fact, lots of people out there who are perfectly willing to live in smaller, cheaper homes, but they simply aren't built anymore. Anyone who wants this has to go buy a little house from the 50's or 60's.
Post reply on HN