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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#921

Post by qPM9l3XJrF »

typon wrote: post #691
qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you watch the documentary Inside Bill's Brain https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771 Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort. And he himself states it was his mother who inspired him to give: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-mother-inspired-p... If Bill's giving was a cynical PR play, why would he be pushing other HNWs to give through the giving pledge? Wouldn't it…

> Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort Proceeds to link a literal PR propaganda piece by Gates and Co.

If your giving is a cynical PR effort, you don't donate to unsexy causes like better toilets or nuclear plants. I'm willing to believe that MacKenzie Scott's giving is a cynical PR effort because she's donating to all the trendy social justice causes. That's what I would do if all I cared about was my public image and didn't care whether my money actually did good. Most coverage I've see of MacKenzie Scott's giving has been positive.

Re: Just Be Rich

#922

Post by McScroogy »

nly wrote: post #817
McScroogy wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your description, it seems to me that renting is cheaper than buying. So it seems renters get the better deal. It's a pity if a flat is empty for a year, but that in itself also does not cause a shortage. After all, it was rented out after a year. The market is supposed to deliver the flat to the person who needs it most. In that case, apparently it was you. Without the speculator, somebody would have rented it…

Mortgages are generally cheaper than rents right now in the UK, provided you have capital put down for a mortgage

But how much capital? You also have to consider opportunity costs of putting down that capital.

Maybe if I put down one million and borrow another 300k, I can get a low mortgage. But I also lost one million.

Re: Just Be Rich

#923

Post by TheCoelacanth »

MikeUt wrote: post #618
nindalf wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you inherited a home in the US valued at $2 million. You would pay 2% of that ($40,000) as property taxes, every year . If you can't afford to pay the tax, you would sell the house and pocket the $2 million. Is this so terrible? Doesn't seem to have stopped people investing in property.

That's buying a new house every 50 years. That's re-building all of the wealth your family spent generations accumulating, every 50 years. That's a direct disincentive to saving money and frugality - the more you save, the bigger your tax gets, while your income stays the same .

> That's re-building all of the wealth your family spent generations accumulating, every 50 years.

Only if you assume a 0% rate-of-return on your family's wealth. With a realistic assumption about rate-of-return, your wealth will never deplete because of a 2% wealth tax. It will simply grow more slowly.

Re: Just Be Rich

#924

Post by taurath »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #502
taurath wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremely rich people around rookie who aren’t rich are likely targets, because frankly on a whim that extremely rich person can solve most of the poor persons material problems in an instant. That’s why rich people live in secluded communities so they don’t have to deal with the consequences of obscene wealth.

The consequences of segregating society like this compound over time. This is why we're seeing a growing number of people unironically calling for the return of the guillotine. Kick a dog enough and it'll bite, or whatever.

When wealth disparity is already above that of 18th century France, one would probably be right to worry about the inevitable backlash, unless they can somehow keep people voting against their own economic interests for another few decades.

Re: Just Be Rich

#925

Post by cloverich »

gmadsen wrote: post #862
cloverich wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a mansion in SF, but a super computer in their pocket? Point being, only some resources are limited, but wealth in general is not.

the things that matter are. Land, housing, access to others labor. Natural resources.

So were you to choose between ever having a computer / smart phone or ever having a house, it would be the house? Beacuse personally I would much rather own a computer, information access, my guitar, several other things I can think of, before trading any for a home or land -- I'd be happy to rent. "Things that matter" beyond a roof of any kind over your head, safety, and basic nutrition I am sure varies widely depending on the person. What good are riches if you can't purchase anything you want?

Re: Just Be Rich

#926

Post by cloverich »

jjav wrote: post #893
cloverich wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a mansion in SF, but a super computer in their pocket? Point being, only some resources are limited, but wealth in general is not.

A phone in your pocket is not wealth, hard to believe this example comes up so often in these discussions. It's a gadget, a depreciating asset. Actual wealth produces more wealth, which is why the very rich get richer even while they sleep. A gadget makes its owner a tiny bit poorer every day as it depreciates.

The problem with defining wealth in that manner is, you can argue a person has literally every material possession they could ever want, from entertainment to knowledge to health and nutrition, and have no desire or use for further "wealth" and yet sitll be considered poor. Yet, it is easy to imagine several of these depreciating assets being more valuable to a person than any imaginable level of wealth, were they unable to use the wealth to obtain those assets.

> Actual wealth produces more wealth

I used my computer to learn to program getting a higher salary than I"ve ever held previously. It produced quite a bit of wealth for me that would have been unatainable without it. Does that impact your stance in any manner?

Re: Just Be Rich

#927

Post by heavyset_go »

EvilEy3 wrote: post #315
heavyset_go wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What first world country can people emigrate to without a sponsor, a degree or specialization?

Why do you think you're entitled to emigrate there?

I'm not the one saying that people living in low income countries can just emigrate to high income countries to solve their problems with poverty.

Re: Just Be Rich

#928

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

mdorazio wrote: post #629
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #615

"Paul paints a rosy picture but doesn't mention that incomes for lower and middle-class families have fallen since the 80s." Income in the US has increased for all brackets since 1967[0][1] (at least). The argument is really about who is entitled to more of the increase. But it's framed by the charts as a zero sum: Rich gaining and poor losing. It's not true. All brackets are gaining. The actual risk is that super-we…

The author is almost certainly referring to real median household income, not personal income, and definitely not average (which is massively impacted by wealth gains at the top). See [1]. It depends which time periods you're comparing, but entire decades saw declines rather than gains. And that's still skewed by the top quartiles. Look at the tables in H2 here [2] to see what's really going on. [1] https://fred.stlo…

Median is the right metric. Household vs. personal, I'm not sure if it matters.

Economic cycles run in decades, hence you need to look at terms longer than decades to see if there is sustained improvement or not. From 1986 to 2019, there was gain at the median. [2; Table H-6] shows that since 1975, the median household income has increased by an annualized 0.7%. Each of the dips in [1] correlates to macro-economic events such as the '89 recession, dot-com/Y2K thing, sub-prime mortgage crisis. When the 2020 number come out, we'll likely see another dip due to COVID.

None of those events were precipitated by wealthy persons somehow screwing the poor. The sub-prime crisis comes the closest, but many wealthy persons were also affected badly by that policy error. The entire workforce of Lehman Brothers, for example.

Re: Just Be Rich

#929

Post by MikeUt »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #923
MikeUt wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's buying a new house every 50 years. That's re-building all of the wealth your family spent generations accumulating, every 50 years. That's a direct disincentive to saving money and frugality - the more you save, the bigger your tax gets, while your income stays the same .

> That's re-building all of the wealth your family spent generations accumulating, every 50 years. Only if you assume a 0% rate-of-return on your family's wealth. With a realistic assumption about rate-of-return, your wealth will never deplete because of a 2% wealth tax. It will simply grow more slowly.

You can't invest a family farm, or a painting. I will repeat myself a 3rd time - if the goal is to slow the growth of wealth, the right course of action is to raise the tax rate on the returns to that wealth. If you tax wealth itself, you're needlessly relying on the investability of said wealth, as well as on market returns.

Re: Just Be Rich

#930

Post by Mandatum »

xupybd wrote: post #336
AussieWog93 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you 100% if it weren't for absolutely ludicrous house prices (for reference, I'm in Melbourne, but I've heard similar complaints from people in Canada and Hong Kong). My wife and I have a far higher than average household income, and even we're worried about how the hell we can afford to own our own home. God knows what the average single-income, working class family goes through.

I'm in NZ and it's craz I've here too. I don't know if that's a symptom of a wealth gap or something else. What ever it is it's a real issue. I personally think prices are inflated by low interest rates and the bubble is going to pop at some point.

We've been saying that for 15 years though.. Sure the interest rates are rock-bottom right now but still most of our countries main investment is property. Until there's legislation to control rent or tax land, I think we're up shit creek.
Post reply on HN