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

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#71

Post by toyg »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #65
georgieporgie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

"That only further demonstrates the income inequality in the United States. " So is this the basic issue, then? That there's income inequality? Because that's always going to be the case. Even in the most socialist nations, or even communist nations. There is always a strong disparity of income and power. Always. And there always will be.

The problem is not the disparity, but how wide it is. Inequality in the US is currently so wide, it's absurd. It's widening in Europe as well, but not as fast and not as radically as in the US in the last 30 years. This is not healthy, it's polarizing society and eroding the social contract. The only way to effectively balance this trend is through higher taxation.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#72

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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…

But you can invest... Your money isn't stuffed under your mattress, is it??

Investment generates profits. It doesn't add to aggregate demand, but subtracts from it.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#73

Post by toyg »

freshhawk wrote: post #52
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.

The problem is that the feedback loop between US and Europe ends up being very unbalanced: American thinkers are hugely influential in Europe, but European ones get disqualified in the US almost by default because they're "socialists". This is a problem for us Europeans as much as for you.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#74

Post by [deleted] »

freshhawk wrote: post #52
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.

[deleted]

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#75

Post by MaysonL »

georgieporgie wrote: post #60
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.

BS.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#76

Post by anon1385 »

jlarocco wrote: post #53
chime wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It doesn't, but it might make the lives of millions of people better in the medium term, and possibly result in knock on legislative changes that give more power to working people: repeal of anti-labour laws and so on. Which makes further real change to the system more likely and possible.

You will find many far left wing types have little interest in proposals to fiddle with the tax system, for the reasons you describe: it doesn't fix the real problem. And in a funny way it may well be against the interests of the proletariat: it prolongs the slow death of the current system. That doesn't mean the far left doesn't talk about income inequality of course, but they do so with a different aim: to increase awareness among the working class of their exploitation, with eventual revolutionary goals.

People have been debating the relative merits of gradual reform/revolutionary change for a long time now…

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#77

Post by georgemcbay »

timwiseman wrote: post #57
aeturnum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"limits on income are likely to encourage people not to try truly hard or truly risky ventures."

When people say things like this it reminds me of religious fundamentalists who claim that a world without belief in God would be some sort of anarchist murder-on-the-streets hellscape because people wouldn't have a reason to act morally or ethically anymore.

Not only is it incredibly pessimistic to believe either of these things, but you don't have to look far to see tons and tons of real-world examples that prove that the statement is completely ridiculous.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#78

Post by Klinky »

roel_v wrote: post #51
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.

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.

If his concept was that people become wealthy because they were "successful" and exceeded the effort of others, thus they deserve to be wealthy then I absolutely think inheritance takes away from that concept.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#79

Post by wvenable »

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?

The issue is that a very small number of very wealthy people are holding onto a very large amount of money. Any money that isn't being used to buy, sell, or invest in something is effectively just taken right out of the economy. Everyone is poorer because this money is "gone" from the system. All this wealth is locked away as a number in a computer.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#80

Post by nooneelse »

johndbritton wrote: post #45

Is it possible that by not publishing the talk they'll draw more attention to it? He should re-record and publish the talk on his own and use the "Streisand Effect" in his favor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

He should also use that re-record as a chance to put in more data to support his point.

And flesh out his thinking. For instance, that bit about:

> "If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?"

I would love to see some stabs (pessimistic, median, and optimistic) at following out the economic effects of that question. What is a reasonable ratio of the $13k which would be put toward more spending, and how would that effect the demand seen by businesses, and thus the number of jobs supported?

Post reply on HN