Why Inequality Matters • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#321

Post by SnowProblem » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

norseboar wrote: post #272

Taek wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I totally agree. I believe that there should be an elite who makes most of the decisions, which is mostly how things are today, but I also believe that there needs to be methods of being sure that the elite are operating in everyon'es best interest, and that they will be replaced if they aren't. There are a lot of broken incentives. If one of the elite comes to the realization that they are no longer the most usef…

Do you see this system of the elite ruling as an ideal that will never be reached (a la Plato's Republic) or as a practical system? Because in the latter case, you've got an intractable problem on your hands. The problem is a basic political systems one: at some point, you need the consent of the governed. There are no stable systems on the record where a majority of those governed dislike the leadership. Either the…

It's a good point. But are there always only two groups, the elite and the majority, or could we create more? It seems to me power works best for everyone when it is more distributed, less uniform, and exists on a gradient from the elites down to the majority. Maybe a government structure could enforce that. For example, instead of just America's, Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, we might also have additional branches for Education, Finance, Security, Business, etc., each having some (but not always equal) constitutional power over other branches, and all trickling down in power to the majority that has voting rights.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#322

Post by radmuzom » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

vishnugupta wrote: post #263

Taek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that always bothers me about wealth distribution is that you can't simply move wealth around and expect things to get better. People who have wealth are going to be better with that wealth than people who don't. They grew up with wealthy people, have managed the wealth for a long time, have witnessed mistakes and successes, and overall have spent a lot of time contemplating wealth. If you take that wealth a…

> If you take that wealth and move it to the average person. Wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily mean taking money/wealth, literally, from wealthy and giving it away to poor. It includes, among others, subsidized education, free access to basic health care, nutritious food, potable water, eradication of epidemics, decent housing, decent retirement income and so on. This is the problem I see in societies that ar…

Eloquently put and very true. Agree on the point about India. Similar thing has recently happened in Australia where Abbott seems to be a stooge of Rupert Murdoch and few other big corporations - and his position as PM seems to be purely ceremonial. As always, the classic talk by Lawrence Lessig [1] makes a really passionate plea to reverse this trend.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#323

Post by JetSpiegel » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

jmckib wrote: post #270

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…

What about the common libertarian viewpoint that we should limit the scope of government so that the rich guys don't have any significant political power to hijack? This comes without the slowing of economic growth that would be caused by higher taxes on capital.

They still have economic power, and no political power to keep them somewhat in check. It's the Wild West.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#324

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:35 PM UTC

ajcarpy2005 wrote: post #304

From the comments on the site: >>>A poor person, will spend all his income on consumption of food, clothes, water and all the basic things that he can pay. >>>A rich person, will only spend a small fraction of it's income, so in the end, proportionally, poor people end paying more taxes then rich people, and that's actually something that's hurting poor people here. ^^^This seems to actually be a sensible argument fo…

No, the solution is to separate the concerns, keep flat taxes (because they are more transparent and therefore more fair) and introduce direct subsidies to the working class (again, transparent and fair... I favor a guaranteed income or an earned income tax credit) so average citizens can buy necessities and even get ahead.

It's a fair point that a flat tax, in a vacuum, is harder on the poor, but we're not in a vacuum.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#325

Post by johnm111888 » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:36 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #202

noarchy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not have a point. Is the alternative to have the state take the money and spend as it wishes? In such a case, is the money "justly earned" if it was taken by force?

Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.

i don't understand where all this demonizing the rich rhetoric comes from. "or more so than the way the rich aquire their money." What? Did they steal their money? Or were they participating in a volunteer economy comprised of mutually beneficial exchanges (i.e. capitalism)? Maybe you live in China or Russia and that's where my misunderstanding comes from.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#326

Post by JetSpiegel » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:40 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #219

lmm wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the state is a more efficient investor of capital. Counterintuitive as it may be, just taking money and giving it to poor people is a very good investment in terms of the public good that results. A rich individual investing into a funded company is much more visible, but that same money spread more widely might launch hundreds of "lifestyle businesses" that would ultimately be more productive.

> "the state is a more efficient investor of capital." Do you have evidence for this claim? If this is the case, shouldn't the countries with the biggest governments (as a percentage of total economy) also be the ones which grow the fastest, and if not, why? How can states be so efficient when they never admit to making mistakes, (almost never) give up on failed projects, or go out of business like private investors…

There's no evidence needed because it's a political opinion. Efficiency doesn't boils down to having the biggest GDP growth, sometimes it's not at all about the money. The HDI is probably a better metric.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#327

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:43 PM UTC

memonkey wrote: post #244

ThomPete wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it would have been an invitation to debate with facts that are hard to disagree with. His solutions on the other hand are easily pulled apart and so that is what many discussions end up focusing on. This is unfortunate.

The solutions that anybody brings in favor of so called Free Market Capitalism or any other form of libertarian market ideology is also easily pulled apart. I don't disagree with you but academics are expected to give a solution, no matter how stupid it may sound to you. IMO, I think he would be taken less seriously if he didn't give a solution. Every single interview and every single talk would literally be the same…

I am not proposing free market capitalism in fact I am not proposing anything. Systems as complex as the ones we talk about here evolve they can't be created and any decision we make have consequences.

I fundamentally believe the issue of inequality to be an issue of technology and therefore also believe the solution to be a consequence of technology.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#328

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:44 PM UTC

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #203

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The entire reason I explicitly pointed out the potential for abuse was to head off the "Charity of Bob's Kids" comment. Obviously such a system would need significant safeguards- this is something we're both fully aware of as intelligent human beings. Mentioning them now is just a strawman unless stated as the overall opinion "it's 100% impossible to stop abuse". On your las…

Ok maybe that was too far.

But everything in the tax law is a testament to how this is playing out in reality. Try as you might, 10,000 lawyers will push their pointy noses through loopholes to benefit their clients, which is everybody.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#329

Post by maxrann » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:52 PM UTC

johnpenton wrote: post #313

dragonwriter wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc. Professional people (as people who are predominantly workers, but usually not on living paycheck-to-paycheck and often with small capital holdings that may suffice for a comfortable retirement) are general middle class, yes. > The US doesn't really have an upper class at all The US actually does have an upper class, peop…

Yeah I sort of see what you're saying. But then do you have a different term for what I'm talking about? What would you call someone who comes from a well known family lineage, speaks with a refined accent, was privately educated, went to Harvard, listens to classical music, collects french poetry first editions, but earns a pittance as faculty in the classics department at a college somewhere and has no savings or i…

> But then do you have a different term for what I'm talking about?

In french I believe the upper class you are referring to would be called "aristocratie" or "noblesse", while the capitalist upper class would be called "bourgeoisie". I know there are similar words in English but I'm not sure if they carry the same meaning.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#330

Post by JetSpiegel » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #257

aidenn0 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government. That's still a tax on the workers' wages, not a tax on the company. If we shifted all income tax into a payroll tax, then by your definition workers aren't taxed at all? Anything that increases the cost of employing a worker will reduce the marginal net…

The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air. My point is that they are providing the income that is taxed and used by the government.

> The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air.

Tell that to Twitter employees