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

Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

nationaljournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#31

Post by muhfuhkuh »

So, when does one prove causation? Because by any economic metric, the times when we've been fiscally strong is when the top marginal tax rate was higher than 36% currently. When they lowered it in 2001 from 40% while going to war, it created net zero jobs during the entirety of the Bush administration (and starting leaking jobs en masse during the crisis in 2008).

One could argue that Reagan's administration saw some powerful growth, adding 15 million net jobs; but, again, he maintained a >50% top marginal tax rate average through his tenure.

The Clinton administration growth rate was even more powerful (arguably) than Reagan's, seeing 23 million net jobs during his tenure, and that was when top marginal rates were nearly 40%.

An outlier, and a very powerful one, is when we saw the largest uplift from post-war growth phase to absolute juggernaut boomtime, was during the 50s, when top marginal tax rates were 90%. Somehow, I doubt we'll ever go back to that time (both in growth and taxation), but we can see that the times of growth was when top marginal tax rates were over 40%. Dip below, no room to grow.

IMHO (with evidence), of course.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#32

Post by matwood »

gadders wrote: 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?

If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?

Because people by their nature are jealous. Many people even hate when their friends do better than them for some reason.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#33

Post by ender7 »

jakubmal wrote: post #20

I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since that's not the case, I decided to speak up. Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. S…

Ah, Social Darwinism. Still alive after so many years.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#34

Post by anon808 »

jakubmal wrote: post #20

I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since that's not the case, I decided to speak up. Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. S…

"Taxing rich people " I'm guessing you're not implying not taxing rich people entirely?

How about taxing all people at the same rate, regardless of how they earn their income? I think that's what the bigger discussion is about.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#35

Post by mccon104 »

horsehead wrote: post #8

I hate the term "the 1%" it's just a bunch of malarkey. Whether you got your money through savvy investing or hard work, it doesn't matter. What you earn, you should KEEP. I detest handouts, especially when someone tries to give them to me. Each person should get according to their work (or their ability to work. The disabled are the only ones remotely eligible for handouts, IMO). Now I'll just watch as my karma plum…

I call bullshit on your malarkey.

I get not liking "the 1%" but you do the exact same thing by using the word "handouts". You swapped one co-opted term for another. One can only assume you really mean "welfare" when you say "handouts", and that to me means you have no idea what welfare is or what it does for the families and people that need it.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#36

Post by jakubmal »

ender7 wrote: post #33
jakubmal wrote: post #20

I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since that's not the case, I decided to speak up. Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. S…

Ah, Social Darwinism. Still alive after so many years.

Right, don't back up. Just diss.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#37

Post by jules »

gadders wrote: 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'd think, but as it turns out, inequality has strong negative effects to the point that even the rich in an inequal country do worse than the more poor in a more equal country.

TED talk about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#38

Post by anon1385 »

gadders wrote: 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?

Inequality of wealth means inequality of power. High levels of inequality mean a small number of people have vastly disproportionate power to shape society in their own interest, at the expense of the majority. Now whether or not you think that is a problem depends on whether you care about things like self determination, democracy and social justice.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#39

Post by chime »

gadders wrote: 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?

Because he has million times more power than you, power over things you hold near and dear. It is fortunate that Gates/Buffett are using their influence for good but not everyone is doing the same.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#40

Post by elemenohpee »

jakubmal wrote: post #20

I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since that's not the case, I decided to speak up. Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. S…

> Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success.

Why is taxing seen as punitive? Is it punitive when we tax middle class people? It's just a mechanism to collect funds for things that are better done with public money than private money. Since the rich stand to gain more from many of the investments, they should pay more. All those companies that make physical widgets? They have to be shipped, largely via roads. Their business and their continued success relies on well constructed roads, of course they should pay for them in the proportion that they use them.

> There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. So regression at it's finest. I think that someone hasn't had his history homework done.

Please, if you think the only options are state-socialism and laissez-faire capitalism then it's you who hasn't done their homework. Reading Atlas Shrugged doesn't count.

This is all boilerplate American-libertarian thinking. You don't understand evolution beyond "survival of the fittest", so don't use it to justify your arguments. Cancer is very successful at reproducing, it sucks up resources and bullies around the "weaker" cells, that doesn't mean it's a positive thing or something that will lead to long-term system-wide prosperity.

Post reply on HN