Live data from Hacker News

Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

nationaljournal.com

21–30 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#21
post #3

While I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning presented in the talk, I can see why TED chose not to distribute it. It presents a pretty conventional argument for progressive taxation, without bringing any new facts or insight to the table. Historically, there is no evidence of a significant correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Whether you believe taxes help or hurt the economy is strictly a matter…

Not to mention that people may reasonably disagree on the definition of "strong economy," and if having a "strong economy" is even a high priority compared to, say, personal liberty or socioeconomic equality.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#26
post #9

Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html ) Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power…

I have to disagree. 31 billion may not wipe out the deficit, but it is a good start. The alternative minimum tax is another good start. I think there will be no single thing that eliminates our deficit, and have yet to hear negatives to the "rich" paying a bit more, especially if many of them are for it.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#27
post #18

Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?

FYI, we couldn't tax the super rich enough to end poverty let alone give everyone a comfortable living.

Income equality is not about solving all problems. It's just trying to rectify one of the most egregious ones.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#28
post #18

Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?

You may not care, and I certainly wouldn't care, but the desire for absolute socioeconomic equality is extremely common. There's a word for it: "egalitarianism." Egalitarianism is a fundamental principle behind many political systems, from socialism to modern American liberalism.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#29
post #9

Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html ) Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power…

Though I support the idea that wealthy people should pay high taxes, perhaps even higher taxes than they do now, I think it's also worth noting that the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%[1].

As long as we're keeping capitalism, I don't buy the argument that simply being rich is wrong. I'm also fairly skeptical of set limits on income, as setting those limits is very hard. What goes into it? How much money per year is the limit of a "Just" income? I don't think those questions have a definitive answer.

I think repealing the bush tax cuts is a good idea. I think we should keep the estate tax. I think the "buffet rule" isn't bad, but it's no solution. I just wonder when people will say it's enough. Rich people pay less tax today than they did a decade ago - but they're making massively more money as well. If we add all those taxes, and there's still a massive income imbalance, what then?

I think it's in everyone's interest to live in an equal society, for reasons that I don't want to get into right here. However, I'm dubious that can be achieved through targeting one social class or another. It seems like the American right is targeting the poor, while the left is targeting the wealthy. Everyone feels like a victim and just wants to keep what they have now. What a crappy situation.

Edit: I missed some words.

[1] http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#30
post #9

Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html ) Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power…

You invest whenever you buy something from a company. Perhaps it is better to have many millions of people making small investments in the form of purchases and therefor "voting" on what is better. Rather than having a few large investors who may likely invest in stuff they never or rarely use which could have a habit of creating a bubble.

That's 100% correct. Investing by consuming products of companies scales a lot better than invest-betting on startups and financial instruments.
Post reply on HN