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

41–50 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#41

Post by donzimmer »

webXL wrote: 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…

"Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits."

Yes. Tony Robbins did a great deconstruction of this in a video, "Is taxing the rich enough? Will that solve our problems?": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak

(Regardless of what you think of Tony Robbins personally, this is an excellent video. I love how he breaks down exactly how much money it would take to really solve our financial issues.)

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#42

Post by cullen »

The case for a progressive tax scheme is that it, may reduce one incentive for the most financially successful monkeys to plunder the less financially successful monkeys, including those monkeys who may be just as smart; but, maybe got started later.

To those of you who are pretending that you've done it all on your own without nobody's help and get your hands off of mine it's all mine mine mine! You're deluding yourself.

I can understand why TED don't want to touch his talk. It would be interesting to note how consistent TED are in this respect.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#43

Post by roel_v »

dalai wrote: post #17
vannevar wrote: 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…

Perhaps it is not a very new or well supported argument, but this is not why TED chose not to show it. The TED curator basically admits that he doesn't agree with the idea and that he also finds it too partisan to distribute. I would be worried if it is really being cut because the curator doesn't agree with it. Now as to whether it is partisan or not, this is not the first TED talk that has that "issue", there are T…

Eh, no. He agrees with the idea, and exactly because it's too partisan, doesn't want to distribute it. As he should.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#44

Post by Robot_Overlord »

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…

Are you saying we should let the poor die off? Sure natural selection could help create "better" human beings. I really do agree. However, I don't agree on your choice of selection pressure. The economic system as it stands also creates a lot of negatives. Pollution and generally screwing people over are some obvious examples. These do not make healthier smarter people. I hate seeing economics compared to evolution, and I'm not sure you understand either.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#46

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

horsehead wrote: post #16
tommorris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Savvy investing or hard work" So, you are up for some kind of strong inheritance tax to ensure that people have to work hard or invest savvily rather than just inherit money from their family. 'Cos, you know, inherited money is neither gotten "according to their work" or "earned", but rather received purely on the basis of random genetics.

So is the fact that you have a home as a child. I don't see that your argument holds water. The fact that you live where you live is pure genetics as well. Why don't you ship your money to starving ethiopians? If you're going to argue that, then you have to be willing to give up what you have too. If you're going to talk about the 1% in America, you have to talk about the USA as the 1%, because, let's face it -- if y…

> Why don't you ship your money to starving ethiopians?

We do, actually. http://www.voanews.com/content/ethiopia-is-top-uk-aid-recipi...

Also, you posed a false dichotomy "Whether you got your money through savvy investing or hard work" and when you were called out on this by having other options for people's money sources pointed out, said that you "don't see" and changed the subject to something emotionally charged.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#47

Post by elemenohpee »

horsehead wrote: post #16
tommorris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Savvy investing or hard work" So, you are up for some kind of strong inheritance tax to ensure that people have to work hard or invest savvily rather than just inherit money from their family. 'Cos, you know, inherited money is neither gotten "according to their work" or "earned", but rather received purely on the basis of random genetics.

So is the fact that you have a home as a child. I don't see that your argument holds water. The fact that you live where you live is pure genetics as well. Why don't you ship your money to starving ethiopians? If you're going to argue that, then you have to be willing to give up what you have too. If you're going to talk about the 1% in America, you have to talk about the USA as the 1%, because, let's face it -- if y…

> So is the fact that you have a home as a child.

Now you're getting it. Educational opportunities, nutrition, etc. It is exactly these institutional inequalities which lead to the un-meritocratic wealth distributions which are causing such instability.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#48

Post by muhfuhkuh »

webXL wrote: 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…

"(See the Department of Education, TARP, Medicare, war, etc.)"

TARP money has been paid back almost in full, depending on who you talk to. The DoE budget is like an eyedropper full in the wake of an ocean, compared to the DoD and elderly entitlements. And, if you want $FAVORITE_CANDIDATE to touch Medicare and Social Security, you go right ahead. I'm quite positive they will smile and move on, knowing where their constituent bread is buttered come election time. Believe me when I say that the elderly are the most important lobby in the US, and they don't even have to spend a dime to influence almost every branch of government.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#49

Post by roel_v »

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?

Your position is correct, but nonetheless fails to account for human nature. It's all fine and dandy to have a system where, through 100% morally justified means, 1% holds all assets. Then you get an uprising of the other 99% and the whole country/system falls on its face. Morally, I don't agree with income redistribution for the sake of egalitarianism either; but pragmatically, one cannot but acknowledge its importance for the stability of a social system. And in the end, that trumps dogmatism.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#50

Post by mikecane »

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…

Your car breaks down, your cellphone gets no signal. You'd be pretty happy for a "handout" you'd self-describe as "assistance" or "help" or a "good deed."
Post reply on HN