Live data from Hacker News

Just Be Rich

keenen.xyz

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#771

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…

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.

Um investments?

Invitation homes owns over 10k homes https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/us-largest-pro...

In 2015, about 1/3 of vancouver homes bought were to Chinese nationals as investments https://www.fortunebuilders.com/one-third-of-vancouvers-real...

Re: Just Be Rich

#772
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…

If you think being a landlord is such a great deal, why don't you do it?

Some of us are not trying to get into the business of exploiting people with less money than us?

Re: Just Be Rich

#773

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…

Part of your article is a bit confusing to me - when you say this: "Strange. No one is proposing a tax that would apply to all your assets." Are you saying that the wealth tax proposed does not apply to assets and only applies to actual liquid cash holdings?

That wouldn’t apply to all your assets, meaning the tax would be assessed only on wealth above the threshold.

PG “simplifies” this in his example by asking you to consider a tax that would have a threshold of 0.

Re: Just Be Rich

#774
post #363

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…

PG's essays have an agenda, which is to defend the rich and the incumbents, disguised as revolutionaries. Because they are young? But they are the same as the robber barons of old.

I enjoy his blog posts, primarily because they show just how your brain can turn to pudding when it's more profitable to be willfully ignorant than otherwise. No one can read his recent obtuse entry and come away thinking his conclusions are supported by the carefully selected input. It's mindless at best, a clumsy, dishonest swipe at the poor at worst.

He's just a middleman between wealthy investors and children of privilege, and like all middlemen, desperate to demonstrate some kind of value he adds to the process before the actual players catch on to the pointlessness of having middlemen in the first place. It really becomes sad when a layer of entrenched middlemen starts to actually believe in their own necessity, so I honestly hope he is at least being disingenuous. Just not sure he could be so consistently dense if it weren't genuine.

Re: Just Be Rich

#775
post #724

Personally, I think anyone who amasses oh, say, 100 lifetimes of wealth and can't stop trying to get more has a mental illness. And I don't mean that for laughs. They have a sickness and are not well. If you've got a $300 million fortune, why can't you just go enjoy life already? It's not like enjoying your life by spending your money isn't going to also create jobs for other people. You don't need to be "a job creat…

It's not about having nice things, it's about having the power to change the world according to your values.

Changing the world according to your values can be extremely good or extremely bad. Considering the selection process for billionaires, I wouldn't assume it's good or even OK for them to have that power. For example, a few billionaires (opinions vary on which ones but it doesn't matter) have been quite instrumental in turning US politics into a toxic waste dump. Maybe values should come from a broader and more diverse population.

Re: Just Be Rich

#776
post #724

Personally, I think anyone who amasses oh, say, 100 lifetimes of wealth and can't stop trying to get more has a mental illness. And I don't mean that for laughs. They have a sickness and are not well. If you've got a $300 million fortune, why can't you just go enjoy life already? It's not like enjoying your life by spending your money isn't going to also create jobs for other people. You don't need to be "a job creat…

I see it completely differently. For a lot of the people that get to that level of wealth, it was never about the money. It was always about something else. I don't think the Bezos, Zuckerbergs, and Musks of the world wake up every morning wanting to make more money. They find fulfillment in their work. The external recognition is not bad either. I think you're right that some people who want to continue making money…

I very much doubt that bezos, zuck, and musk share a common purpose. And whether you're clamoring to amass more wealth, recognition, or control, the top posts point stands; obsession over a singular purpose to the detriment of everyday life is a bad pattern. at the worst, it will cause emotional stress and mental disorders - at best, it will divorce someone from an understanding of shared human experience.

Re: Just Be Rich

#777
post #724

Personally, I think anyone who amasses oh, say, 100 lifetimes of wealth and can't stop trying to get more has a mental illness. And I don't mean that for laughs. They have a sickness and are not well. If you've got a $300 million fortune, why can't you just go enjoy life already? It's not like enjoying your life by spending your money isn't going to also create jobs for other people. You don't need to be "a job creat…

I see it completely differently. For a lot of the people that get to that level of wealth, it was never about the money. It was always about something else. I don't think the Bezos, Zuckerbergs, and Musks of the world wake up every morning wanting to make more money. They find fulfillment in their work. The external recognition is not bad either. I think you're right that some people who want to continue making money…

> For some, the money is just a byproduct.

In theory, sure, some are just motivated because they are driven types after a vision of conquering something or other. But this is just a story. In reality, incentives change behavior. Money motivates people. They tell themselves other things, but money motivates people. There's a reason why bonuses and equity are enormous. They attract and amplify financial greed in a vicious cycle.

I used to be a free market/libertarian type, so I understand the whole "let people do whatever the heck they want with their money, as long as it's not violent" but I'm not now. It's surprising that you can just...stop...believing that. Money and its protection, the market place, property...anything that is not a banana in your hand, anything you didn't literally make yourself from rocks and sticks, requires cooperation and dealing with other people, and obeying the rules. Today's instruments of wealth aren't chickens and bread; currency, money, debt; these are social constructions and social agreements. Everything from the government to the police to the courtesy not to rob someone in plain daylight makes currency and money possible; the entire structure of society is a protection scheme for money and property. It's a "safe place" for transactions. It took a ton of work to get here, and a ton of people to keep it going! Without the protection of society, we'd be at chests full of gold surrounded by people with spears. Instead, the system we have now is a social contract--a complex one--that requires a huge amount of cooperation from a lot of not very rich people doing their jobs so rich people don't get eaten alive.

I think it's entirely fair that as participants of that system, we decide what the cap on the number of gold coins you can put in your chest is. Because you can't really defend that level of wealth on your own, you need all of us to do that. So we have a say. (I would put that number, personally, at less than $1 billion. I literally believe that there should be a personal wealth cap of $1 billion. Full stop. It's actually OK to believe that, and I promise you, no one is going to die.)

The rich have so thoroughly blinded and corrupted our thinking about property. They hate scrutiny. They hate people thinking seriously about what the structure of society is. They hate when people notice how insanely unfair it all is. They'll just say Marxism, or Communism, or Socialism. And you're supposed to shut up because you're a monster like Stalin or Mao, apparently. And then the lies. The denial. The koolaid. It's amazing to me that people just accept their roles in holding up the pyramid so willingly. But I guess society would have fallen apart long ago if it didn't select for people willing to hold it up, no matter what the dumbness of the day is.

Re: Just Be Rich

#778

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,…

There's a certain irony in you posting that Lewis quote. "Omnipotent moral busybodies" is a good description of a significant part of the left-wing these days.

> This new, self-made entrepreneur class does not only think they have earned their money themselves, which as a sidenote is also kind of a fiction

It's not a fiction that entrepreneurs earned their money themselves. It's more complicated than that but it's not fiction. Most entrepreneurs fail, the ones who get rich usually do something innovative.

It is a fiction that entrepreneurs are "intellectually superior, morally superior and virtuous" but, again, who really thinks of themselves that way, Paul Graham-style entrepreneurs or the lefties who insist that they are motivated purely by "justice" but are clearly at least partly motivated by resentment?

There are good arguments for left-wing policies. But the left today is culturally ascendant and many of its most popular arguments are petty vindictiveness (like, for example, that rich people didn't innovate in order to get rich -- most of them did!).

Re: Just Be Rich

#779

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…

The wealthy capitalists are paying much less than 40% tax rates. Tax rates for capital are cheaper than tax rates for labor.

In Silicon Valley, the long-term capital gains tax rate is >37% (Federal + State + NIIT). That rate starts at well under a million dollars. And in the US, you aren't allowed to deduct inflation losses and have a limited ability to deduct capital losses, unlike some other developed countries. These losses don't affect labor.

Silicon Valley has one of the highest tax rates on long-term capital gains in the world, even more than almost all "social democracies". When Europe starts to look like a tax haven, the taxes on capital are not too low.

Re: Just Be Rich

#780
post #724

Personally, I think anyone who amasses oh, say, 100 lifetimes of wealth and can't stop trying to get more has a mental illness. And I don't mean that for laughs. They have a sickness and are not well. If you've got a $300 million fortune, why can't you just go enjoy life already? It's not like enjoying your life by spending your money isn't going to also create jobs for other people. You don't need to be "a job creat…

It's not about having nice things, it's about having the power to change the world according to your values.

A world filled with those kinds of people is constant conflict, anger, and disappointment. A recipe for a seriously unhappy and misspent life.
Post reply on HN