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

Wealth Shown to Scale

mkorostoff.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 147 posts

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#111

Post by refurb »

cloudfifty wrote: post #102
refurb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a "living salary"? If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home?

Pretty low quality question. Of course the salary will not adapt according to individuals expenses and neither will it here in Scandinavia. However, the father will of course be obliged to pay child support. The mother will also receive a monthly allowance for each child. She will also likely be eligible to rent support. So children is a special case, but a living wage doesn't involve that. How did you think this wou…

So the govt subsidizes the businesses low wages? Corporate welfare?

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#112

Post by cloudfifty »

bb123 wrote: post #108
cloudfifty wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people will find ways to work less to keep their earnings down Even if that is true and significant, I don't really find high income people skipping overtime to be major problem? But I'm curious to read more about the claim that doctors skipping overtime due to high taxes, can you share a link? Furthermore, the aim can't be to institutionalise overtime through tax cuts (I don't believe it would work either and thos…

Sure: this is about a slightly different specific of taxation here, but its sums up the arguments the doctors have: https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-says-the-chancel... Also to clarify - it isn't about overtime. Previously full time (40 hours a week)doctors have switched to part time (2-3 days a week), to avoid hitting the 60% rate.

That seems much more targeted and specific than the usual right wing talk about taxes causing high income people to work less (which implicitly values that above redistribution). It's also not a result (as in, X% of doctors have cut their working hours) but a plead (we may do this unless!).

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#113

Post by cloudfifty »

refurb wrote: post #111
cloudfifty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty low quality question. Of course the salary will not adapt according to individuals expenses and neither will it here in Scandinavia. However, the father will of course be obliged to pay child support. The mother will also receive a monthly allowance for each child. She will also likely be eligible to rent support. So children is a special case, but a living wage doesn't involve that. How did you think this wou…

So the govt subsidizes the businesses low wages? Corporate welfare?

No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#114

Post by refurb »

cloudfifty wrote: post #113
refurb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the govt subsidizes the businesses low wages? Corporate welfare?

No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?

It’s not bad faith. Plenty of arguments in the US have been around wages where the govt has to provide additional support. It’s called “corporate welfare”. The argument is the company should pay enough on its own.

Why can’t you have a conversation in good faith?

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#115

Post by dalbasal »

vishnugupta wrote: post #77
dalbasal wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it seems to me that not all of his wealth is usable Bezos is the richest, so we don't have examples quite at that scale. That said, we have some pretty big (eg gates, buffet) announcing liquidation & donation without anything bad happening. So, he probably could sell his amazon shares and do something else with them. You are approaching some "it's complicated" questions that occur at scale though. It's true, for…

Thank you for a detailed and informative response. > ....only has so many builders, roofers, cement shops, cranes... only so much capacity to produce houses....only so much labour, materials, capacity to produce. IMO the underlying problem to solve is mobilisng this capacity. And the $$ to do so needn't come from rich people. The US anyway has been running budget deficit, there's also this ~$2T infrastructure bill. S…

So... I don't think there's a universal "underlying problem." Everything has a context. Mobilising the capacity of an economy is, IMO, a macroeconomic question. Besides being big and involving the whole economy, macroeconomics is almost synonymous with monetary economics... the economics of money.

So, I don't think you can seperate it from tax and monetary policy.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#116

Post by cloudfifty »

refurb wrote: post #114
cloudfifty wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?

It’s not bad faith. Plenty of arguments in the US have been around wages where the govt has to provide additional support. It’s called “corporate welfare”. The argument is the company should pay enough on its own. Why can’t you have a conversation in good faith?

I'm not repeating myself again. But given your comment history I'm sure that you're just here in bad faith in general.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#117

Post by jpn »

Bezos's wealth comes out to be about $500 per person.

I would be more than happy to pay $500 to another Bezos that provides my life was as much value.

Amazon is so convenient!

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#118

Post by sooheon »

LeonB wrote: post #104
sooheon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all of your points and still believe that rent seeking is the root cause to be addressed, not wealth in and of itself. Wealth is just stored labor. It is value neutral, and everyone has the right to the fruits of their own labor. It is only rent, unjustly collected from others' labor via force or monopoly that is illegitimate.

Taxing the ultra-wealthy is possible, and they still get to be ultra-wealthy afterward. We already do it, the discussion is only “how much?” and what to do with the money. That’s a tractable problem. (Incidentally - the rich have been winning this argument for a long time, as their effective taxes fall and fall and fall.) On the other hand, proving that a specific piece of income is “economic rent” - I think that’s i…

> Tax people who can afford to be taxed. The alternative is hardly going to work.

Tax harmful externalities and rent-seeking. The alternative is unjust and illiberal.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#119

Post by refurb »

cloudfifty wrote: post #116
refurb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not bad faith. Plenty of arguments in the US have been around wages where the govt has to provide additional support. It’s called “corporate welfare”. The argument is the company should pay enough on its own. Why can’t you have a conversation in good faith?

I'm not repeating myself again. But given your comment history I'm sure that you're just here in bad faith in general.

Avoiding the question just makes me think you don’t have an answer.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#120

Post by LeonB »

sooheon wrote: post #118
LeonB wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing the ultra-wealthy is possible, and they still get to be ultra-wealthy afterward. We already do it, the discussion is only “how much?” and what to do with the money. That’s a tractable problem. (Incidentally - the rich have been winning this argument for a long time, as their effective taxes fall and fall and fall.) On the other hand, proving that a specific piece of income is “economic rent” - I think that’s i…

> Tax people who can afford to be taxed. The alternative is hardly going to work. Tax harmful externalities and rent-seeking. The alternative is unjust and illiberal.

You didn’t address anything here.
Post reply on HN