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

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#51

Post by roel_v »

tommorris wrote: post #10
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…

"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.

Everybody should be free to do with their money as they please. This includes that one should be free to give money to their children as they please. The side effect that this creates a bunch of children who are rich without having earned the money, doesn't take away from that.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#52

Post by freshhawk »

petercooper wrote: post #11

There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes. I'd suggest it's not too controversial but too pedestrian. Or maybe I'm seeing this through European eyes; ideologically, this topic/argument is mainstream here, even if politicians fail to do m…

I think you are seeing this through European eyes. This is the kind of thing that gets you yelled at, threatened and told you're the "kind of [people] ruining america" if you talk about it in the US.

It's not controversial among people who are educated in the subject, but among the general amerian public it's incredibly controversial.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#53

Post by jlarocco »

chime wrote: post #39
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.

If I can buy "power" over somebody then that's the problem, not the income inequality.

Furthermore, I don't see how fixing the income inequality fixes the root problem there.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#54

Post by Arelius »

aeturnum wrote: post #29
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…

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 mu…

>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].

You do realize that if you make about $80K/year, you are already in the top 10% right? With that perspective, I feel that 70% of taxed income is absurdly low, the fact that 30% of all US tax dollars come from people making less than $80K/year is completely absurd to me.

Edit: According to your table, the number is actually: $112,124 I still think my point stands.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#55

Post by ChrisLTD »

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…

It's not about punishing success, it's about realizing that the market is not perfect at distributing wealth, and that wealth is not created in a vacuum.

To the first point, are bankers, the founders of instagram, athletes, and movie stars really contributing so much to the world that they are worth hundreds of doctors, or thousands of teachers?

To the second, would you be successful if it weren't for those doctors, teachers, garbage men, police officers, mail carriers, etc.?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#56

Post by georgieporgie »

aeturnum wrote: post #29
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…

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 mu…

I think it's also worth noting that the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%

Why is that worth noting? That only further demonstrates the income inequality in the United States. Furthermore, wealth is far more important to take into account than income in any discussion of taxation or inequality.

Also, I have yet to hear anyone make an argument that sounds anything like "simply being rich is wrong."

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#57

Post by timwiseman »

aeturnum wrote: post #29
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…

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 mu…

Well said. To go a bit further, limits on income are likely to encourage people not to try truly hard or truly risky ventures. Paul Graham addresses this at http://paulgraham.com/gap.html

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#58

Post by Arelius »

poppysan wrote: post #26
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…

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.

> especially if many of them are for it.

I do not think that is the case, generally speaking.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#59

Post by mccon104 »

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…

First, if you want to talk Darwinism you need to get your terms right.

"It's not the strongest who survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most adaptable to change." Charles Darwin.

By (incorrectly) calling someone who isn't rich "weak" you're placing your personal judgements on them, because that's not at all what Darwin was talking about.

I do find it interesting that you consider taxing people "punishment". Does that mean you consider government, or at least funding of the government, a form a punishment?

What if the current system is rigged (by loopholes and allowances for swiss banking) so that the rich can avoid paying what the rest of the population does? Wouldn't that mean the "weaker" species were the ones actually being punished? So by raising the effective rate on the rich wouldn't you simply be restoring order to the system?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#60

Post by georgieporgie »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #31

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 so…

I've heard a number of people (Grover Norquist included) make the claim that although the top marginal tax rates were higher, there were a far greater number of tax exemptions available. I have no idea how true this is, and I'm not aware of anyone who's studied the actual income, wealth, and taxes of America's rich over the decades.
Post reply on HN