Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Inequality Matters

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 462 posts

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#181

Post by moggflunkies »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #147
brandonmenc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m also a big believer in the estate tax As a third-generation American, I find the estate tax, even in its current form, extremely offensive, because it strives to reset every generation to zero instead of letting families establish themselves over time by building on the sacrifice and efforts of the parents. The current level of taxation, even though it's been recently, "graciously" increased, greatly extends th…

It's just a different mentality towards life and entitlement- there's nothing sad about it. Hitting all your points in order: 1) 1 million dollars is a lot of money to come out of nowhere. It's simply dishonest to pretend that isn't a life changing amount for a middle class family. At the very least it's going to be like you said- modest home paid off(100-500k), car loans all paid off(50k), and student loans paid off…

1)Your entire logical chain is premised off the fact that people don't make communal sacrifice in the generation of wealth. You pretend that only individual actors generate wealth. Imagine a family running a small business or rental properties or whatever you can dream up, children are often employed and exert effort in overall progression of the business. Albeit some more than others, its not your place to demand that their efforts go unrecognized.

2) You can expand that mindset to indiviuals with healthy genes. It's an absolute lottery as to who will have a strong heart, full head of hair, great stature. Why not manage those factors too some day?

3) Your mindset will change with age and if your children grow to become functional members of society. You will desire to offer them an even greater opportunity to make a meaningful impact than you did or could.

Your mindset is that of a baby-boomer. I am wondering if you are one?

> Let the fruit of my efforts benefit society/humanity as a whole. It was my goal in life and ought to be in death.

And why do you get to decide how that is done? Why not offer up all of your wealth to be managed on your behalf in the most fair and equitable method?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#182

Post by angersock »

tsunamifury wrote: post #138
r0h1n wrote: post #10

I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…

I strongly disagree with this conclusion and I believe it not-so-subtly implies we should use the tax code as a form of moralization. What about all the people who make the super-yatchs for the wealthy. Or the all the contractors employed to make the luxury towers in downtowns across the world. Tens of thousands if not millions of people directly gain (and likely from the middle and lower classes) from the spending o…

What about all the people who make the super-yatchs for the wealthy?

What, like all ten thousand of them, across the entire globe?

Or the all the contractors employed to make the luxury towers in downtowns across the world

What, like all the semi-legal immigrants and blue-collar workers? Those people often are barely getting by, and it's kind of feast-or-famine work.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#183

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #174
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Polyanna thinking, that an estate tax will benefit humanity. What nation do you live in? You trust the govt to spend your wealth, more than say a relative? I don't believe it. And 'wealth' isn't all gold buried in the back yard. Its also investments in businesses (either stocks or directly) as a corporation or even a proprietorship. Who runs the restaurant after you die? The government? Preposterous.

You're assuming the estate tax needs to exist in it's current form- ideally it would allow for me to deign money out to specific aspects of government or approved (need to avoid abuse here) charities of my choice. That would still serve to dissuade the multigenerational family/genetic lottery while leaving the individual with some say in how their (now former) assets are used. On your last point- a traditional corpor…

Ooooor... just give it to them before you die. Likewise the stocks. Likewise the 'approved' charities - the Charity Of Bob's Kids would be ideal I think.

More Polyanna thinking that anything you can make up in a minute, won't be gamed to death by anybody and everybody. Why? Because almost everybody wants to increase the chances of their children/heirs succeeding. Its built into the species.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#184

Post by webXL »

nemo wrote: post #137
saalweachter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…

You can see this in action with Soros and the Koch brothers, both of whom have invested a lot of wealth to directly influence politics and social movements that further their political ideas. Even if you agree with one or the other's political goals, the fact that anyone can have that much sway over the governance of an ostensibly democratic society is a huge mess with serious risks to society and the common good.

Their political ideas aren't their own, and I highly doubt they would put so much of their resources into them if there wasn't a large base of support there already. Government spending in the US as a percentage of GDP has almost flatlined since the early 90s. There was a spike recently, but the previous growth wasn't really sustainable with the quasi-free-market economy everyone (at least in the US) seems to prefer. The Soros' and Kochs' of the world are everywhere and always influencing things in both directions. I don't think this is a valid concern given the balance of power in our governments.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#185

Post by vph »

harmonicon wrote: post #121

I have a lot of respect for Bill Gates because of his philanthropic efforts. However, I am very skeptical of the consumption tax argument. To me that sounds like a sales tax and sales tax is regressive. i.e. Tax on French baguette hits the poor more than the rich, since as a group they consume way more baguette. Even if it is just a special sales tax that targets the rich only, discouraging spending by people with mo…

he proposed progressive tax on consumption. His argument makes sense.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#186

Post by sp332 »

bsbechtel wrote: post #92
crdoconnor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The other option is to limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth. That's one of the core ideologies UNDERLYING the great shift in wealth from poor to rich: that politics should have no say in wealth allocation. What that ultimately means is that the rules of wealth allocation are decided by the wealthy without democratic oversight. Hence here we are.

>That's one of the core ideologies UNDERLYING the great shift in wealth from poor to rich: that politics should have no say in wealth allocation. Please provide evidence or reasoning to back up why you think this causes money to flow from the poor to the rich.

When the government doesn't have a say in wealth distribution, it can't act to correct gross inequality.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#187

Post by lmm »

judk wrote: post #97
protonfish wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no supply-side economist, or advocate of Brave New World consumerism, but I believe that taxing the purchase of actual consumer products would not have a positive effect on the economy of the country. I believe a healthy economy is an active one. An incentive to remove money from active circulation (hoarding) could have long-term negative repercussions. And a country where the government encourages the average pe…

Paying someone to do worthless work (lavishing luxury on someone) does not help society much. That's just gaming the numbers, like saying "going to war" helps the economy. Paying someone to alleviate basic needs does. Not all consumption is equal.

But consumption has a tighter feedback loop that ensures money spent on consumption is never truly wasted. If something is useless you stop buying it, and there's a limit to how much one person can waste - you can only eat so many meals, wear so many nice suits, take so many private jet flights. People who lose fortunes don't do so through consumption, they do so through bad investments.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#189

Post by dsrguru »

m0th87 wrote: post #152
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nassim Taleb is dense, but not in the way you mean...New Yorker-level hand-wavy, extreme generalizations, OMG the horror of how stupid everyone else is...but if you can get past the pompous jackassery it is true there is much to be learned from him.

It's interesting that you critique Taleb's broad generalizations, and then typecast him as a handy-wavy New Yorker at the same time.

The parent was almost certainly referring to the publication the New Yorker.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#190

Post by inthewoods »

forgingahead wrote: post #98
saalweachter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…

Currently, 436 people (Reps, Senators and President) control nearly 4 trillion dollars, the budget for this year. What should we do about them?

One possible solution - add more representatives to make the power less consolidated.
Post reply on HN