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

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#141

Post by ry0ohki »

georgieporgie wrote: post #122
waterlesscloud wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

So is this the basic issue, then? That there's income inequality? No, not at all. Who have you ever heard make such a claim? The issue is the size of the inequality, its growth , and the fact that historical periods with less inequality and a stronger middle class seem to correlate with strong overall growth and prosperity.

I don't understand why the size of inequality matters. If I make $20,000 and Rich guy makes $2,000,000, how does me making $20,000 and him making $200,000,000 million make any difference?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#142

Post by meej »

jules wrote: post #37
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

I haven't seen either talk, but I am really curious now about why TED would post Wilkinson's talk but not Hanauer's, if they both address the subject income inequality.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#143

Post by crusso »

mikecane wrote: post #138

Discussions like this sometimes stagger me personally. Did Dickens write for nothing? Does everyone really wish to be Scrooge or Bounderby? Did Jack London write The People of the Abyss and waste his time? How many times must we relive that age before the lessons we learned from it at that time are permanent and inarguable?

Why would you think that fictional stories that would be anecdotal if real should inform anyone of anything?

Real economic issues require solid statistical analysis based upon proven economic models. Anything less is just a projection of emotional bias that means little to society and would never solve anything.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#144

Post by crusso »

smsm42 wrote: post #124
spamizbad wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targeting medicare and social security is silly anyway. They are funded via a separate tax (FICA/SECA) that only applies to the first 200K/250K of income. And the only reason why SS/Medicare are running out of money is because the government frequently borrows against social security surpluses. You may remember, back in 2000, one of Al Gore's campaign promises was to put social security into a "lock box" with the hop…

SS is funded by separate tax, but if there's a shortcoming, it is filled from the general budget, and if there's a surplus, it goes into general spending - so this distinction is an accounting fiction, both are incomes of the same government and as long as government fulfills its obligations nobody cares how the money got there. When SS starts running negative cash flow, the govt would have to refill that. Right now…

> as long as government fulfills its obligations nobody cares how the money got there

I care. If they increase our debt or just start printing extra money, they have fulfilled their obligation to SS while screwing the rest of our economy pretty hard.

> has very little meaning except taking part of the money out of circulation for no reason

Very little meaning except having the government follow rules of financial discipline that any financial advisor would advise individuals and businesses to follow. If you want to save after-tax money for retirement, separate it out from the rest of your disposable income. Keep separate accounts, separate records, etc. Otherwise, you'll blur the line between your different monetary purposes and it's doubtful you'll mean your savings goals.

It's about discipline and clarity to the American public. Sure, a dollar would be a dollar if the government were responsible enough to follow sound money management principles... but when have they ever done that?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#145

Post by crusso »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #107
webXL wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to pay TARP back in full when you can borrow at the Fed at 0% and lend at 5%. Favor. Education performance has stagnated ever since the DoEducation was created. Who benefited? Not me or my kids! And the fact that we have third-rail (untouchable) programs in this country is NOT a strong argument in favor of more "investments".

"Education performance has stagnated ever since the DoEducation was created. Who benefited? Not me or my kids!" Education performance lagging in the US is not the fault of it being federated. The shining education systems by competency in Math, Science, and Reading comprehension (S. Korea, Finland, Canada, New Zeland, and Ireland) all have federated education systems. FWIW, though, I love the idea of the Finnish 7-16…

> Education performance lagging in the US is not the fault of it being federated

It's not the fault of being federated, but obviously federating it here the way we did was a catastrophic waste of money and effort.

Maybe we should completely scrap the current waste of money and gradually put something else in place that works? I certainly don't trust the current power structure to do anything but continue to waste our federal education dollars.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#146

Post by reinhardt »

davekinkead wrote: post #100
timwiseman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, because high tax rates always discourage entrepreneurship Norway - with one of the highest tax rates & comprehensive welfare states on the planet - has higher rates of entrepreneurship than the USA does. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/20/norway-entr... If you look at international entrepreneur rates, its pretty clear that there is no relationship between income tax rates and start-up activity (th…

Speaking of Norway, a recent TC article paints a different picture: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/23/is-norway-leaving-its-tech-...

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#147

Post by mikecane »

crusso wrote: post #143
mikecane wrote: post #138

Discussions like this sometimes stagger me personally. Did Dickens write for nothing? Does everyone really wish to be Scrooge or Bounderby? Did Jack London write The People of the Abyss and waste his time? How many times must we relive that age before the lessons we learned from it at that time are permanent and inarguable?

Why would you think that fictional stories that would be anecdotal if real should inform anyone of anything? Real economic issues require solid statistical analysis based upon proven economic models. Anything less is just a projection of emotional bias that means little to society and would never solve anything.

OMG. Have you also algorithmically quantified love too? And tell me what a "proven economic model" is. One where the rich have to hire working class cops in their off-hours -- depriving said cops' families of their presence -- so they can feel safe in common spaces? One in which private security and private prisons are the fastest growing employers? I've got news for you, pal, and you can shove this up your algorithms: People are not machines and, as messy as you might find this fact to be, have emotional components. Someone in the lower rungs of society might not be able to explain with a PowerPoint presentation the precise manner in which he or she is being screwed, but emotionally they can show you.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#148

Post by splinterofchaos »

webXL wrote: post #112
splinterofchaos wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that, but the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the rich, still ( http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/03/news/economy/income_inequali... ). Low income houses would still pay low taxes, just not no taxes. Plus, the idea that ending the Bush tax cuts and giving a break to the poor are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. The power exists to do both.

I never implied the rich didn't disproportionately benefit or you couldn't end the Bush tax cuts and help the poor at the same time. However, the net effect of that new tax structure wouldn't help the economy much, and therefore wouldn't help tax revenue.

You're right. I had misread your post.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#149

Post by ClHans »

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, as an individual, may not care. Unfortunately, historical evidence and social science evidence suggests that (bearing in mind that you as an individual may not care) when income inequality grows too great, other parts of society begin to suffer and eventually break down. This even affects things like the average health outcomes for the people living in the unequal the society.

There's a strong correlation that indicates that poorer health outcomes, higher crime, poorer standard of living all go hand in hand with greater income inequality.

Again, you may not care, for your own sake, but the country is a fair bit larger than you, and this problem does affect us all, whether we care or not.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#150

Post by fl3tch »

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%

Yes, but they also own 70% of all the wealth[1], according to 2007 numbers (the percentage is almost certainly a little higher today), so that's perfectly proportional. If you own 70% of the wealth, you should pay 70% of the taxes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-in...

Post reply on HN