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

151–160 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#151

Post by mikecane »

mtjl79 wrote: post #70

I'm sorry but, higher taxes aren't going to solve anything. At the end of the day, our spending will just not stop. We are just adding fuel to the fire. We need to: • Invest in the future: We need to invent, produce, and export new renewable energy sources. We need to invest in robotic manufacturing because cheap people labor is not sustainable in any country - robotic is where it will go. • We need to heavily tax im…

>>>Drastically cut bullshit spending. There are billions spent every year on...bullshit.

Look, I'm no defender of gov't waste, but you can't blanketly say "bullshit" without specific examples. One's man bullshit -- the two Steves with their "toy computer" -- is another man's gold (Markkula, who saw the promise and invested early). Is NASA bullshit? Is protecting the environment bullshit? GPS satellites? The Coast Guard? Food inspection? I see the news headlines like everyone else trumpeting what look like screwy studies. What we never ever hear is any follow-up that one "stupid" study connected to a non-stupid study that led to a breakthrough. A breakthrough that most likely was just handed over to some private company to exploit for profit without any compensation coming back to taxpayers (this has been the case for decades with private companies taking government-tabulated data and reselling it as for-profit databases). This latter giveaway to private enterprise with original funding by working people is the ultimate bullshit to me.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#152

Post by cowkingdeluxe »

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…

The main thing Buffet was trying to do was to raise the capital gains tax rate, which is only 15% right now. It would save quite a bit if it was raised back to 25%.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#153

Post by philwelch »

dfc wrote: post #134
philwelch wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich people don't act as a cabal though. For every Koch there's a Soros. So while individual billionaires do have a lot of power, probably more than they should, it's still very strongly tempered by the mob, so to speak.

You think there is a one to one ratio between Koch and Soros type billionaires?

Not exactly, but then again the country is neither as libertarian as Koch would like or as progressive as Soros would like. And frankly, there are things that Koch and Soros probably agree on that aren't the status quo either, so how do you explain that?

The fact is, there are as many viewpoints as there are billionaires, and that's what keeps them from forming a cabal. If you want to find someone who can form a cabal to bend the system for private profit, look for a corn farmer.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#154

Post by driax »

ry0ohki wrote: post #141
georgieporgie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the money he spends raises the price of goods etc. Therefore your 20,000 becomes less money. This is easy too see in expensive cities. The same middle-class person would have to demand more money to live at the same standards as he/she would have elsewhere, simply because richness have driven up the prices.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#155

Post by ojbyrne »

fl3tch wrote: post #150
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…

> 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...

Actually, since almost every country in the world thinks progressive income taxes are the right thing to do, then this is an argument supporting higher taxes on the wealthy.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#156

Post by dfc »

philwelch wrote: post #153
dfc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think there is a one to one ratio between Koch and Soros type billionaires?

Not exactly, but then again the country is neither as libertarian as Koch would like or as progressive as Soros would like. And frankly, there are things that Koch and Soros probably agree on that aren't the status quo either, so how do you explain that? The fact is, there are as many viewpoints as there are billionaires, and that's what keeps them from forming a cabal. If you want to find someone who can form a caba…

Why do corn farmers have more homogenous viewpoints than billionaires?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#157

Post by Daniel_Newby »

ry0ohki wrote: post #141
georgieporgie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It makes no difference to you. It makes a great difference to the politician trying to get control of $198,000,000.

The blather about a strong middle class is misdirection. If the U.S. governing.g elite cared about the middle class, they would abolish the armies of bunny rabbit inspectors, No Child Left Behind functionaries, and so forth. The American middle class is being choked to death by regulators, not billionaires.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#158

Post by horsehead »

mikecane wrote: post #136
smsm42 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it mean I have the right to take a car and a cellphone from any nearby person that looks rich enough to afford another one? After all, I need it clearly more than he does, so forcefully taking it from him is completely justified. In fact, if he objects, I'm completely justified to call him a greedy pig - I gave him an opportunity to do a good deed, and he dares to object? Despicable.

Really, do you tend to see everything in the form of "take" instead of in the form of "give"?

When the government taxes the rich to spread it to the poor, it is taking.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#159

Post by Daniel_Newby »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #129
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.

Let me put it this way. It sounds like you don't want the entire government budget to rest on taxing one class and one class alone, the upper-class. That's a pretty virtuous and equitable thought to have, very fair to people who probably have much more than you. Problem is, if income/wealth inequality is too severe, those guys are the only ones with money to contribute . So on some level, you need a certain level of…

When the poor people are fat, it is safe to assume the middle class has money to contribute to running the country.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#160

Post by andr3w321 »

Here's the text and slides to the talk. I'm sure the video will come out eventually.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101628527

I think it's pretty ridiculous TED would not post this video. They really shouldn't be censoring things like this unless someone is just completely making things up in their talk in which case they did a poor job of picking their speaker.

Post reply on HN