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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#701

Post by JohnWhigham »

chrisseaton wrote: post #549
lou1306 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Now break that 60% down by demographic. Also, the rate has been going down over the past 2 decades, and I'd wager it will continue to go down.

Re: Just Be Rich

#702

Post by Robotbeat »

p49k wrote: post #678
px43 wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The solution is just a land value tax.

You don’t get taxed on improvements to the land, you get taxed on the value of the land (ie based on the value of the surrounding land... a vacant lot—or a lot being “renovated”—pays the ~same tax per acre as a 3 story apartment building next door instead of an order of magnitude less).

Re: Just Be Rich

#703

Post by jimbokun »

Tepix wrote: post #542
refurb wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We've had a wealth tax in the past.

Who's "we"? I can't find any references to a wealth tax in US history.

Re: Just Be Rich

#704

Post by literallycancer »

donnythecroc wrote: post #64
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,…

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…

A gas station attendant being able to afford a newly built house is a historical anomaly. The kind that only happens after half the population dying of plague or after a world war. The current trend is just a return to the normal state of affairs.

Re: Just Be Rich

#705

Post by Robotbeat »

ramphastidae wrote: post #599
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.

> There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Do you really think that’s a factor? That the wealthy say “My family has all bedrooms they need, so I’m done investing in real estate?” PE firms buy up entire communities and repackage their mortgages into investment products. Foreign investors will buy property regardless of location and never step foot in it if it’s in a more stable country than theirs. Real…

Then we should have a substantial land value tax. If they want to park their wealth in unoccupied housing, they’ll have to pay dearly for it. And they won’t get a cheaper bill by leaving it unbuilt or unoccupied.

Re: Just Be Rich

#706

Post by toomuchredbull »

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…

For someone as smart as Elon Musk to never be able to start their own companies they really have to be born in a real shit hole country, in a real shit hole part of the country. Even in India or China they would be identified and given opportunity.

Re: Just Be Rich

#707

Post by TheButlerian »

WalterBright wrote: post #386
taurath wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they’re not talking about “those people”, aka the 63% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. When the ultra rich speak they’re only speaking to the upper middle 40%. We love a good rags to riches story but economic class changes less in the US than many other countries, despite this “ease”. Show me any group of founders and you can point to a few outliers but people who have had jobs like grocery store…

> 63% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck That doesn't mean they're poor. I've known many, many people with zero savings living paycheck to paycheck. They had new cars, nice houses, good furniture, expensive clothes, took vacations, and ate regularly at restaurants. They simply spent it all.

Get cancer and die

Re: Just Be Rich

#708

Post by Agenttin »

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…

I've often thought this about those dark strip malls and grocery stores. They need to be incentivized to either lower the prices so low that someone will move in, or to demolish the building. Just marking it off as a loss every year while it slowly decays destroys the property values nearby.

Re: Just Be Rich

#709

Post by dasil003 »

nindalf wrote: post #662
hellbannedguy wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates 501c3 puts back less than 1 percent off their benovelent humanitarian money back to the United States. The country that coddled him, an his connected mother. Personally, I think these good ole nonprofit boys; Billy, Zuck, Warren, etc. are tax dodgers. Obama wanted to reform nonprofit regulations, but chickened out.

Yeah Bill Gates - terrible guy. Spending money trying to eradicate diseases that kill poor people. What's worse, here's him in 2015 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI ) wasting money and faffing on about some pandemic. As if that's going to happen, and even if it does the pandemic won't affect rich countries in any way.

Sure I’ll give credit for his recent philanthropy, but the man crushed a generation of innovative software companies under his heel. Fortunately he didn’t see the web coming and failed to stop Linux, but make no mistake was not a good person for most of his career, and we are still feeling the effects of the damage he did to the software world.

Re: Just Be Rich

#710

Post by gumby »

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,…

> Because at least old money understands the concept of noblesse oblige.

Sounds like it was written by someone who didn't grow up around "old money".

There's plenty of statistical literature on this myth.

Post reply on HN