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

431–440 of 462 posts

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#431

Post by JonnieCache »

brc wrote: post #390
vishnugupta wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily mean taking money/wealth, literally, from wealthy and giving it away to poor. " What? How could you possibly describe it any other way? You take cash from a wealthy person, and you give it to other people, either in dirk react payments or sbisized/free services. Argue about whether that is the correct/incorrect thing to do all you lie, but don't indulge in Orwellian doublesp…

He was trying to make a subtle point, and you've knowingly interpreted it in the strongest possible way, in order to post a substance-free truism.

To then complain about "orwellian" use of language in the next sentence is just taking the piss.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#432

Post by noarchy »

couchand wrote: post #355
jasode wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>, I didn't interpret his comment as attacking Shinkei. I'm not saying he attacked Shinkei. couchand criticized the message and not the messenger which is certainly acceptable. I'm pointing out that he's criticizing a figure-of-speech by stating to us the legal literal definition of "punish". Because couchand didn't parse Shinkei's "punish-as-in- sentiment ", he made the mistake of equivocation[1] and talks about pun…

I'm not equivocating at all. People use the term punish when they feel like they've been punished. I'm trying to figure out why people immediately think they are being punished by taxation somehow completely forgetting the police and fire protection, nice roads, pretty parks, clean water, etc. that comes along with it. Taxes are not a punishment, they are an admission ticket to society.

>I'm not equivocating at all. People use the term punish when they feel like they've been punished. I'm trying to figure out why people immediately think they are being punished by taxation somehow completely forgetting the police and fire protection, nice roads, pretty parks, clean water, etc. that comes along with it. Taxes are not a punishment, they are an admission ticket to society.

You usually purchase an admission ticket without being coerced to do so. Tax forms are filled with threats about what will happen if you do not comply. So while "punish" may not be the right term, it isn't anything like an admission ticket.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#433

Post by noarchy »

lmm wrote: post #430
noarchy wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do. As a thought experiment, imagine that taxation became completely voluntary tomorrow. What percentage of its former revenue does the government make? Suddenly, the government has to compete with other entities for money. Government doesn't know the competition…

The experiment's already been done. No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cov…

>The experiment's already been done.

I'd love to hear about it.

>No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did.

"What people did", isn't what you or I did, necessarily. Are you making the classic HN error of assuming that every reader lives in your country (usually the US)? Or do you think that every government is legitimate, no matter what, so long as it is not overthrown?

>If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online)

Eve Online is not a great example, imo, for a few reasons. First the corporation tax is built into the game's mechanics. It is assumed that this is must be how all corporations will work. But that's less of an issue than.. Two, corporation membership is indeed voluntary. It is exceptionally easy to leave a corp (minus a potential 24 hour stasis). Even if you're deep in nullsec, you can get out. If you die trying, no big deal. This is nothing like living in a modern state, where even leaving said state can be subject to prohibitive border controls. And getting shot by an agent of the state doesn't exactly follow by you ending up in a station where your clone was located. The involuntary nature of the state and the very real consequences of what it does immediately separates it from something akin to an Eve corp.

>Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary.

I don't think there's any doubt that if a government suddenly didn't exist, or could no longer pay its bills that we'd see alternative institutions take up the slack in certain areas. But it isn't necessarily a state entity that would do so, and this is clearly a main point of disagreement here.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#434

Post by sanderjd »

brc wrote: post #390
vishnugupta wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily mean taking money/wealth, literally, from wealthy and giving it away to poor. " What? How could you possibly describe it any other way? You take cash from a wealthy person, and you give it to other people, either in dirk react payments or sbisized/free services. Argue about whether that is the correct/incorrect thing to do all you lie, but don't indulge in Orwellian doublesp…

> How could you possibly describe it any other way?

You could describe it in the many thoughtful ways in which the rest of the comment did describe it, for a start.

The comment it was in reply to also made it seem like the idea is to take wealth from a single wealthy individual and bestow it upon a single poor individual, noting that the newly wealthy individual probably doesn't know what to do with it (like many lottery winners). That is clearly not the intention of literally anybody who is in favor of some redistribution of wealth. Rather, they propose many different ways (some of which were mentioned by your parent comment) that wealth would be spread across many less wealthy people.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#435

Post by joyeuse6701 »

Taek wrote: post #177
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…

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…

You can't keep wealth and expect things to get better either... Fortunes and the opportunities inherent to them have been lost by fools of the next generation who invested poorly or just consumed. Naturally those who earned it we would say should keep it, but I'd agree with Gates/Buffet that it is a sort of odd thing. I agree we don't want inexperienced people handling the wealth and that I would say includes family of the wealthy.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#437

Post by shawn-butler »

ska wrote: post #87

"I don’t see anyone on the list whose ancestors bought a great parcel of land in 1780 and have been accumulating family wealth by collecting rents ever since." What you do see though, in the same Fortune 400 list is that 6 of the top 10 people on that list didn't build their companies (in the sense that Bill Gates did), they inherited them. I don't know how much the current crop Kochs or Waltons are responsible for t…

What is the point of arguing a counterfactual?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#438

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Taek wrote: post #177
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…

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…

>It's an unpopular opinion, but I don't think that everyone should have a roughly equal say in how things go. The average person isn't as well equipped to deal with large problems as the elite are.

You are assuming the elite are far wiser and more ethical than the broad masses. That is not at all well-evidenced.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#439

Post by shawn-butler »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #286
kamaal wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'm really not seeing why anyone should be entitled to never work again simply because their parents made a lot of money. Because, their parents earned it. People slog their bones off, make a lot of sacrifices and after a life time of work get to such a position. If some body's parents doesn't want to leave a inheritance, or don't to earn or whatever. I would leave that at calling it as their personal decision. >>I…

You answered your own second statement. Their PARENTS earned it. Not the kids. That's my entire point- I don't think children should be entitled to assets their parents "slogged their bones off for" simply because they won the lottery of being born with those parents. You disagree and that's fine, I was merely presenting the other side of this debate (and the one I personally sit on the side of).

Actually some endeavors are a multi-generational effort. Specifically consider the case of farming / ranching. Many development projects are unprofitable over the course of a single lifetime.

Large estate taxation schemes always need to carve out exceptions for ag and then the loophole-thread pulling begins.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#440

Post by sanderjd »

brc wrote: post #425
VexXtreme wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you're getting downvoted, even though your statement is basically correct. It's very sad that it's getting harder and harder to have a fruitful discussion here on HN. Some people are more interested in downvoting based on their immediate emotional reaction, rather than having a rational, honest discussion. If you disagree with someone, then reply to their post and try to have civilized discourse, don't jus…

Eh, I'm used to it. I don't particularly care about karma points. I'm proud of my unfashionable opinions. Each one is the result of careful thought, aware from the blare of popular media and popular opinion. The herd instinct is getting stronger, and the rush to censor unfashionable opinions increases on HN. Which is funny, because one of the best essays by pg is 'what you can't say'. Closely followed by 'mind the ga…

From my point of view, you were more likely downvoted because you singled out a single sentence of your parent's (thoughtful and lengthy) comment to knock down in bad faith, rather than making an interesting argument about wealth distribution and inequality.

Your views about these things aren't at all unfashionable on this site or in American society at large, and many who disagree with them still think they are reasonable and worth discussing. Your comment just didn't express your perspective very well!

Post reply on HN