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

American Equity

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 552 posts

Re: American Equity

#121

Post by simonsarris »

chollida1 wrote: post #3

Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan, numbers, etc to actually critique, Which is odd because he specifically ask you to give feedback but never follows through on presenting the actual idea. He does motivate why he thinks a share of the GDP is so he gets the why, but never actually gets into the what, and how. I mean the GDP isn't…

> Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan

Run for office perhaps. In other words, if you can't discern a plan, maybe the post is more about Sam than it is about a plan.

(NOTE: I do think he has a plan here, just very back of the envelope. I think he's mulling over ways to incrementally roll out UBI, which if you think UBI is a good idea, figuring out an incrementalist approach is hugely crucial, important work. I don't think UBI is a good idea, but I do think this post is about a real thought and not just Sam posing or something. I have faith that there's real intellectual sincerity here.)

Re: American Equity

#122

Post by dv_dt »

benmanns wrote: post #105
dv_dt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do tax wealth in a very limited way in the form of real estate property taxes. Though I would note that it hits the middle class and poor more disproportionately than the extremely wealthy. And I'd note that the tax cuts in front of congress propose making that scheme land even harder on the middle class by eliminating or curtailing the state/local tax (including property tax) exemptions from federal taxes.

Capital gains tax + inflation is a wealth tax. Each year you have to grow your money by inflation for it to maintain buying power. 2% inflation * 20% top rate LTCG tax means the wealthy pay a deferred 0.4% wealth tax yearly.

That's sort of true, but I'm not sure if that the inflation effects are truly a "tax on wealth". Inflation is a tax on everybody, holding a wide range of assets in that sense. Also because it's driven by inflation, those proceeds to the government are also just growth of proceeds needed to buffer against inflation in the goods that government purchases.

Edit: Thinking about it a bit more. Inflation would also tend to drive up the numerical profits of companies, which will tend to buffer a stock price for example. So I'm not sure how this inflation independently contributes much of a specific tax on the wealth.

Re: American Equity

#123

Post by kolbe »

aerovistae wrote: post #96
kolbe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, China's implementation of socialism has taken it from a third world country to the most powerful nation in the world in a little under 40 years.

Yeah that's not really socialism that's doing that. They're become pretty capitalistic over there in certain respects.

It's pretty convenient for you to call a communist a communist only when he fails, but then take credit when he succeeds. I still see a nation with no liberty, controlled by a central planner to a very large extent. It may not conform perfectly to Marx's vision, but it sure as hell doesn't conform to Adam Smith's, either.

Re: American Equity

#125

Post by taxtherich »

cryptonector wrote: post #106
jacquesm wrote: post #16

People already have a share in the GDP. That's what it is, the total domestic product, the sum of all the little parts. The problem is not that people don't have share in it (and this goes for every country, not just for the USA), but that they have a disproportionate share in it. Bill Gates' (to name a random American citizen) has a far larger share in the GDP than most other Americans. If you want to solve that rai…

+1. And whence the money for the share? Taxes. So this is just a UBI. This, like all UBI proposals, seems like a way to dress up a massive tax hike: "but you'll be getting your share of GDP!". The only way to get me to like a UBI is to have UBI replace absolutely all (and I do mean all) welfare programs so that we can just haggle at every election over one headline UBI number + necessary taxes. And the initial UBI an…

There are wealth taxes in Switzerland, Norway, France, and the Netherlands, amongst others in Europe.

They've been repealed in countries like Sweden and Austria, not because they were disasters, but because exceedingly wealthy people have a lot of influence. That's the only story.

As such your claim that no such taxes exist is wrong; and your claim that they've been a disaster is also fallacious.

p.s. your "ready for downvotes" nonsense is such immature nonsense. You said an untrue thing that HN audiences wish were true, and then pretended you're being brave. You're a joke.

Re: American Equity

#126

Post by kome »

American tech élite is funny... USA can't even a normal healthcare BUT the tech élite is all about Universal Basic Income, Transhumanism, the dangers of AI, going to Mars and saving the suburbs/car lifestyle.

Can't they just wake up and put their mental energy and money on something that actually make sense?

Re: American Equity

#127

Post by dllthomas »

maxerickson wrote: post #38
koolba wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bill Gates' (to name a random American citizen) has a far larger share in the GDP than most other Americans. If you want to solve that raise your taxes on the rich and lift up those that are at the lowest end of the scale. That will have a lot more effect than some fiction where you get to do a bunch of make-believe bookkeeping. Or go a step further do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth That's what all the…

The estate tax is a tax on wealth.

Only for mortals.

Re: American Equity

#128

Post by brndnmtthws »

blizkreeg wrote: post #114

I have a better (may be slightly insane) idea. Open up startup investing (VC rounds especially) to a wider audience through some kind of index fund. Retirement and pension funds, endowments etc are too roundabout a way of actually benefitting from the windfall in the now. While this is obviously risky, in the 2/10 chance where the startup IPOs or gets acquired, everyone stands to benefit a big deal. I recently heard…

This is what ICOs have recently enabled. It's not insane, in fact it's already happening.

VC investing has traditionally been a good ol' boy club, but I think that will change. Openings up investing to everyone will provide more people with an opportunity to prosper.

Re: American Equity

#129

Post by SubiculumCode »

I have promoted among friends this idea in place of the guaranteed income proposals. While perhaps similar in operation, Guaranteed Income sounds like a handout, while equity or an inheritance promotes the idea that this is about owning and benefitting from this great American experiment.

Re: American Equity

#130

Post by splintercell »

conductr wrote: post #79
RivieraKid wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drawback of taxing wealth is that it distorts markets, it discourages saving. EDIT: Can't comment ("You're posting too fast, blah blah blah"). Here are some replies to the comments bellow: > It's encouraging people to make their money be productive instead of stashing it under a mattress. When you have money in the bank, you're effectively lending most of it to other people. Your money is "productive", which is e…

It's encouraging people to make their money be productive instead of stashing it under a mattress. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

> It's encouraging people to make their money be productive instead of stashing it under a mattress. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

It is, because storing money under a mattress is equivalent of investing in money itself. As OP said too, it is like you lent your money to all the other investors in the economy (because you taking that money out of the economy reduces the prices of capital goods, which means they can now acquire it for cheaper). This results in wealth creation, which you benefit from when you take the money out from under the mattress.

This of course, can only work as an active investment strategy if you have a fixed or predictable money supply. For an inflationary currency such as any fiat currency, you will just get screwed.

This works great for cryptocurrencies for instance, people keep talking about how nobody has any incentive to invest in Bitcoin projects if just holding it will make it go up. Well, when bitcoin holders hold bitcoin, bitcoin economy still grows, and the purchasing power of their bitcoin goes up.

Post reply on HN