Live data from Hacker News

Are super-rich people just better at making money?

pudding.cool

201–210 of 587 posts

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#201
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This focus on super-rich individuals is totally misguided. What's important is the economic system. Rich individuals are simply a nauseating side-effect of capitalism. Nobody really likes it, but there simply isn't anything better. The burden of proof is on the complainers. Even Marxist-sympathetic Peter Singer gets it. >Look, I think it would be better if you had an economic system in which we didn’t have billionair…

I don't get the productivity argument. What productivity is enabled by billionaires or even individuals? Noam Chomsky has covered this, but most corporations benefit extensively from decades of government funded research and development. The socialist driven productivity is there, it's just that we slap capitalism on it at the end and think it was that that got us here.

R&D is just one aspect. Productivity refers to general competent management incentivized by market pressure. Anti-capitalists apparently can't even run lemonade stands these days:

Ezra Klein: "If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-fr...

"Meltdowns Have Brought Progressive Advocacy Groups to a Standstill at a Critical Moment in World History"

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2021/05/27/basecamp-climbs-...

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#202
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are wealthy and refuse to earn an income, then your savings will eventually deplete and you’ll become bankrupt. Additionally they wealth already taxed in a previous era, and is currently taxed in this era any time they spend it via sales tax. If of course you are spending all your money on personal groceries as a billionaire, then I’m 100% fine with not taxing you.

I don't think any individual should be a billionaire. There's no conceivable reason for a single person to need or have the right to be a billionaire.

A better attitude would be to say that billionaires need to share more of their wealth. If you make them pay a let's say 5% wealth tax for having excessive wealth, then they're not strongly discouraged from trying to increase their wealth, while everyone else benefits. And in due time they will cease to be billionaires.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#203
post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

Ah, the mythical "super-rich" who could fund all of our solutions, if only we could prise their money out of their clutching hands! It's funny how they always exist, even in countries like the UK and France which in reality have taxed them out of existence, and payscales are absurdly compressed compared to the US. Careful what you wish for, you are someone else's "super rich".

>the UK and France which in reality have taxed them out of existence

You're making it sound like billionaires are an endangered species there. :) Last time I checked there's more than enough billionaires living in the UK and France[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Arnault

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've noticed consistently, is when politicians talk about "taxing the wealthy", they almost always follow that with "earning more than $xxxk a year". This is conflating wealth with income. Being within this tax bracket myself, I do not deny that I am biased, but I do hope this bullshit gets called out hard whenever someone brings up yet another underhanded measure to milk us (typical SFBay SWE) above and be…

Come to the Netherlands! 52% kicks in early and plus there is the 2% worldwide wealth tax on all non-real estate investments. Is it worth it, just to live in a shockingly civilized society under a highly functional government?

> Come to the Netherlands!

LOL, no thanks!

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#205
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's a very easy way... Of making all your modestly rich people close shop and leave > forbidding any financial interactions with "offshore" countries And what do you think "offshore" means? This is TikTok levels of financial naivety

Offshore is common term. Its collectively all those small countries which have minuscule corporate tax, zero financial rules and refusal to cooperate with big countries about financial tax evasion. Basically everyone from Ireland, Switzerland (sorry guys, just business) to Bahamas and Panama (and ban flags of convenience while we are at it). Definitely all countries refusing to disclose financial records for internat…

> Definitely all countries refusing to disclose financial records for international law enforcement.

Since you apparently never heard of FATCA and OECD CRS I'll leave it at that

Oh yeah and several US States don't require financial/personal information in a lot of cases (including real estate transactions).

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#206
post #109
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a practical matter, it is very difficult to tax wealth (and even harder to do it fairly.) I don't think the issue is lack of will but lack of plan that actually works in the face of assets with unclear value and/or difficult to liquidate. And this doesn't just affect the ultra rich but people like SWE too. How much is the stock you have in the non-public company you work at really worth? SWE are probably one of th…

It is reasonably easy. Step 1. The country creates a law forbidding any financial interactions with "offshore" countries (list is populated manually by lawmakers) and also with companies working with such offshore companies (shell intermediaries) in "good" countries. Step 2. Country forbids its citizens from owning any assets or be incorporated in the same "offshore" countries. Step 3. Blanket ban of cryptotokens. St…

So your plan to tax wealth instead of income doesn't involve taxing wealth?

Sure you can do all that, and that would close some tax loopholes (albeit at a cost), but has nothing to do with taxing wealth instead of income.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#207
post #88
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d expect education costs to be rising, though, as people are expected to have a higher level of education before entering the workforce than they were previously, and because career changes and reskilling are far more common than previously. It’s a bit like healthcare. You can be spending far more than you were when there was a younger population and fewer sophisticated and expensive treatments, and yet still not…

There is no evidence that people have a higher overall level of education before entering the workforce over time. Rather, people know a different set of skills and accumulate a different body of knowledge. It is only if we define "education" as the degree of knowledge in the body of subjects we teach today that one can say people in the past had less of it. But that's only because we have discarded the many bodies o…

>Rather, people [nowadays] know a different set of skills and accumulate a different body of knowledge.

Yes, but this is increasingly knowledge that needs to be imparted through formal education (for a variety of reasons). Hence it costs more.

>But how many resources does a society need to train its workers? If that number keeps growing, then there is something wrong with the society.

I don't see the logic here. It's fine as long as you can afford it.

>as well as know Greek

Only a tiny minority of the working population could read Ancient Greek in Europe in 1800. In England, around 50% of the population were still entirely illiterate at that point in time.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#208
It’s hilarious that the author blames the yard sale model for their never earning money on vintage watches.

The issue with applying the yard sale model is when testing against real world markets, almost no market follows the predicted distribution curve, which imo implies that something about the model is incorrect, ergo cant possibly be the reason for continually losing deal on vinyage watches.

Many markets follow pro basketball player distribution, and unless you believe that steph curry is getting lucky on every shot, implies different model.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#209
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some counterpoint thoughts: > - consensual trades are win win (you want a sandwich, I want $5 let’s trade! And we both win) Not all trades are exactly "consensual". The sandwich seller can probably live without selling a sandwich, I can't live without food, so the seller has far more power to set the price. Existing power imbalances make trades less fair, specially with essential goods (and that includes jobs, which…

In the real world, there is more than one sandwich seller and they compete with each other. When was the last time you non-consensually bought a sandwich? Even homeless people on the street will sometimes refuse free food, so the idea that sandwich-sellers can set any arbitrary price they want or people will starve is just not something that happens in practice. Indeed, sandwiches are abundant and affordable.

People tend to think about monopolies in terms of single companies, but they're more commonly a systemic thing.

Housing: Most voters are homeowners, with the shared incentive to increase the price of housing in their town through restrictive policies. This ignores the interesting conversation about whether NIMBY actually increases property values, but most people believe they do. They don't even have to be explicit about it, nor get 100% cooperation, but the emergent property is clear and shockingly consistent across US

Healthcare: There are many systems at play here, as an example: The AMA restricts the number of doctors who can enter the profession: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-a...

Education: Prestige de-facto limits the number of 'desirable' schools in the marketplace, and the high-prestige schools haven't grown nearly as much as overall enrollment.

There's no single top hat wearing, cigar chomping fat cat. Or even a smoke filled back room. But a variety of cultural and regulatory norms keep the dynamics entrenched. Which isn't to say that they can't be changed! But it won't be just the subtle nudge of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#210
post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

Your assumption is that the state will apply that money optimally (or at least more optimally than the super rich - also, notice you didn’t define what super rich are).

Looking at historical and present data, I can be absolutely sure that the state will mismanage that money in almost every country.

I’m Portuguese, my government is collecting more ~ 25% taxes than it collected 6 years ago when the current ruling party got into power. Almost everyone (left and right) agrees that public services and administration are much worst. So, it begs the question: why giving the government even more money, will solve anything?

Post reply on HN