Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#101

Post by ForHackernews » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 6:54 PM UTC

flenserboy wrote: post #54

ForHackernews wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

The question this brings up is this: instead of making it impossible for families to establish themselves for generations, instead encourage families to think and invest long-term, without having their accumulated experience and wisdom be made meaningless by having their resources stolen from them? Encourage people to have all-around healthy, well-raised children who will (if they so choose) carry on the and develop…

I'm not saying you can't raise your children to be healthy long-term thinkers or whatever strawman nonsense this is. You just couldn't give them 100 million bucks.

> Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes.

I see exactly zero evidence that our current practice allowing obscene generational wealth is encouraging sound long-term thinking from our plutocract rulers.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#102

Post by colinmhayes » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #66

pydry wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments that tax unimproved land can reduce taxes on income and spending. Point being that society loses nothing by increasing taxes on unimproved land except an opportunity for parasitic wealth extraction whereas by taxing spending you lose valuable and productive economic activity. For the greatest political impact the money from a land value tax should initially be given to poverty stricken pensioners.

The government is always the biggest obstacle to improving land. People try very hard to improve their land and the government puts up tons of red tape. We need less government involvement, not more, and certainly not more in the form of a harebrained utopian scheme like Georgism.

The government is the people. The government puts up restrictions to building because that's what people want. NIMBYism is hyperlocal politics backfiring by incentivizing people to prop up their land value at the expense of everyone who wants to move there. LVT incentivizes landholders to densify, so they will stop lobbying the government to ban building.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#103

Post by CraigJPerry » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #96

CraigJPerry wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> usually is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! >> Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution No it’s not. If i generate my wealth by being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed more to society than a nurse who declared bankruptcy after the latest food and energy price increases? It’s not because of the extremes of my example, it’s because wealth doesn’t accrue as…

>> usually > is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! You can safely replace it with "the majority". > If i generate my wealth by being being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed In no way. You have not generated any wealth, you've inherited it. Andrew Carnegie generated wealth. "Colonel" Sanders generated wealth. Hell, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk generated wealth, as did any guy who runs a pro…

>> the majority

Not a high enough bar to decide whether someone should gain benefit of society

>> In no way

That seems like a catastrophic hole in your boat then? I can have lots of wealth - and so by your idea qualify for all the benefits society has to offer - yet having contributed less than the bum did before he fell out of a productive path in life.

There’s too many holes in the idea that wealth can be used even as a rough proxy. Pick any low productivity roles with high value in society, from pastors / chaplains to a family carer. These are high value to society but they’re economic drains.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#104

Post by epgui » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:12 PM UTC

jschveibinz wrote: post #88

epgui wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and access to education is in fact one of the biggest barriers to vertical mobility in the US.

Can you please provide some data to back up this assertion? It is true that life situations (poverty, lack of parental assistance, safety and security, cultural roadblocks, etc.) are impediments to successful participation in school. But is “access to education” a a demonstrable problem? Many states offer very low cost or free access to community college higher education.

There's about a million different ways you could do a PhD on this subject: data on this question is not missing.

Some search queries I recommend (just as a starting point):

- "Factors in access to education"

- "Access to education causal"

- "Access to education in America"

- "Access to education world data"

- "Access to education developing countries"

- "Public education and vertical mobility"

- "Relationship between education and innovation"

- "Relationship between education and health"

- "Public health and economic productivity

- "Access to education and marginalized groups"

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#105

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #94

cee_el123 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap" I am one of those people who certainly missed the boat due to my own missteps, mistakes, lack of motivation But let's talk about those who don't/didn't have the favourable circumstances and opportunities I had/have Is not being able to afford / be-accepted-for a life changing college degree that person's fault 50% of the time ? is it their parents' fault ? is it th…

Government is constantly giving people a boost. Need-based grants for college, for example. All sorts of welfare programs. Food stamps. Unemployment insurance. Housing vouchers. Social security and Medicare in retirement. I’m not sure what kind of society you are arguing against, because it’s not the one we have.

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#106

Post by jschveibinz » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

epgui wrote: post #104

jschveibinz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please provide some data to back up this assertion? It is true that life situations (poverty, lack of parental assistance, safety and security, cultural roadblocks, etc.) are impediments to successful participation in school. But is “access to education” a a demonstrable problem? Many states offer very low cost or free access to community college higher education.

There's about a million different ways you could do a PhD on this subject: data on this question is not missing. Some search queries I recommend (just as a starting point): - "Factors in access to education" - "Access to education causal" - "Access to education in America" - "Access to education world data" - "Access to education developing countries" - "Public education and vertical mobility" - "Relationship between…

Here is a website for the ACLU that you can use as a reference. If you believe that any child is being denied access to education, the ACLU is a good place to go to get assistance in getting justice:

https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-equality-education

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#107

Post by PeterisP » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #43

Is there a single example in history where income redistribution worked while it was also easy for foreigners to enter the country and growth persisted for everyone while maintaining said ratios of acceptable inequality? - If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners. - If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything oth…

I don't see why the effect of a policy should be judged with a so wide focus that it's considered worthless unless it helps the whole humanity and foreigners.

Policy is decided, implemented and evaluated on the level of societies, not on a global level. We have no global government, and the only global cooperation is voluntary, with wealth redistribution only happening as much as one society arbitrarily chooses to spend on charity and foreign aid for another. Social policies are not implemented worldwide but rather by some society for its own benefit, and if some policy makes a society successful, that's a great policy for that society. Leaders in democratic societies are accountable to people of their society about ensuring that their needs, desires and choices get met, they are not accountable to humanity in general but rather the people they represent, and in general these voters give a very limited mandate to sacrifice prosperity of their society to "raise the bar" of worldwide prosperity. If the society chooses to make policies that benefit everyone else, great, but if it does not, then the policy is good if and only if it fits the choices of that particular society. We can make a strong argument that there is a moral imperative not to harm other societies, however, ignoring them is an acceptable 'default' state of noninterference.

If doing something allows you to "pick winners" so that all of your society are winners, that would be great (certainly better than what we have now) and would have effectively solved things that matter for that society, even if it does not extend to the world beyond its borders.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#108

Post by throwabro789 » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

jschveibinz wrote: post #106

epgui wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's about a million different ways you could do a PhD on this subject: data on this question is not missing. Some search queries I recommend (just as a starting point): - "Factors in access to education" - "Access to education causal" - "Access to education in America" - "Access to education world data" - "Access to education developing countries" - "Public education and vertical mobility" - "Relationship between…

Here is a website for the ACLU that you can use as a reference. If you believe that any child is being denied access to education, the ACLU is a good place to go to get assistance in getting justice: https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-equality-education

This is also really reductionist. “Good spots” were scarce in China, Japan and the USSR too. You could be (1) Asian in China, (2) cognitively capable (3) but still part of the group of 19 kids who didn’t get the 1 spot that 1 kid did. And you were fucked, and you didn’t emigrate.

The “racial or cultural superiority therefore black kids are fucked” thing you’re really believe in is stupid. It’s unactionable and nobody gives a fuck about that perspective. There are like a handful of legitimate ways to address the scarce spots for everyone not just high achievers, but the racial and cultural superiority people don’t spend even one iota of their time or one cent of their dollars making the good schools bigger. It’s a profoundly immature point of view, and its immaturity should give you insight for why people don’t like you.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#109

Post by flenserboy » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 10:42 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #101

flenserboy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question this brings up is this: instead of making it impossible for families to establish themselves for generations, instead encourage families to think and invest long-term, without having their accumulated experience and wisdom be made meaningless by having their resources stolen from them? Encourage people to have all-around healthy, well-raised children who will (if they so choose) carry on the and develop…

I'm not saying you can't raise your children to be healthy long-term thinkers or whatever strawman nonsense this is. You just couldn't give them 100 million bucks. > Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes. I see exactly zero evidence that our current practice allowing obscene generational wealth is encouragi…

You're blinded from seeing what could be done by the emotional reaction the $ signs are giving you. Look at the adjectives you have chosen — those are the bounds of your thought-space.

Consider the first point: yes, you can make them "healthy long-term thinkers", but without resources — especially when those resources are expropriated for the value of those with far different or far less long-range aims for them — it will only get them so far. I'm suggesting that encouraging long-term thinking on the part of individuals and their families, with part of that encouragement allowing them to build and maintain significant financial reserves and control of businesses, resources, etc., will have far more salutary effects than allowing those resources to be strip-mined for the sake of investors, corporate raiders, and government indulgences. What is currently lacking is an incentive for those who hold great resources to do more than either live large off of them or put them into ridiculous "charities" or "foundations" that end up doing very, very little of use. At least Carnegie built libraries; today's people buying their consciences back tend to purchase an assortment of politicians. Such a great use of resources.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#110

Post by nine_k » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #103

nine_k wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> usually > is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! You can safely replace it with "the majority". > If i generate my wealth by being being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed In no way. You have not generated any wealth, you've inherited it. Andrew Carnegie generated wealth. "Colonel" Sanders generated wealth. Hell, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk generated wealth, as did any guy who runs a pro…

>> the majority Not a high enough bar to decide whether someone should gain benefit of society >> In no way That seems like a catastrophic hole in your boat then? I can have lots of wealth - and so by your idea qualify for all the benefits society has to offer - yet having contributed less than the bum did before he fell out of a productive path in life. There’s too many holes in the idea that wealth can be used even…

We are disagreeing mostly because we seem to discuss separate problems.

My point is that the amount of wealth acquired through doing business has a posiitive correlarion with doing something that the society values and finds good.

Your point is that the amount of wealth generated and any other good done to the society should not prevent a person from gaining certain social benefits.

These point do not contradict each other. Basic benefits (like protection of life) should be, and are given by the society equally to a bum and to a millionaire (even thoough a millionaire can also buy an extra package on top of the universal protection). At least such is the idea and the letter of the law.

This is basically the difference between commerce and love: love is unconditional.

But the amount of matetial manifestations of love a society can give its members is limited by how rich it is. If you are poor yourself, you cannot help your poor neighbor, except maybe with a kind word.