Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#211

Post by danShumway » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:55 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #206

danShumway wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. It sounds like you're saying here that crime doesn't have a strong enough effect on inequality to really practically matter when compared to other factors. Is that what you're saying? That other factors are so much stronger that they're able to actually reverse the trend we would otherwise expect to see? -…

So, you don't think an extra EIGHT MILLION people choosing disability payments over working is a significant factor in inequality? > so it's really not feasible for me to even consider taking welfare that would be conditional on me not having a job or earning any additional income You can still be setting yourself up in business. It takes a while before a business generates income. You could also use the time to upgr…

> So, you don't think an extra EIGHT MILLION people choosing disability payments over working is a significant factor in inequality?

Like I said:

> People can debate which of those theories are correct. But all of them are more plausible than the idea that crime rates are strongly correlated with rising inequality.

----

> and have another source of income off the books.

:shrug: This seems like a lot of trouble to me personally; I don't like the idea of either not putting income into the bank or not reporting it on taxes. Audits are nasty :). Maybe I'm over-cautious on that front, I guess people do sometimes choose not to report income -- but since I'd like to make significantly more than those numbers, I suspect that's a solution that wouldn't really work for me long-term unless all of my side projects/ventures stayed very small. At most I'd need to only do it short term.

Again though, I don't think my own preferences or choices matter that much here, I think looking at overall data trends is better than looking at personal anecdotes. I don't think it's really relevant to the conversation what I would or wouldn't do.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#212

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:56 PM UTC

hotpotamus wrote: post #80

Miner49er wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this very thing is what is already causing polarization? Many people are already trying to reduce wealth inequality. Maybe the upper classes are fighting back in a way that causes polarization.

At what level of wealth inequality do you imagine the upper classes saying, "ok, I guess we've got enough, we can stop fighting back now"?

Never

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#213

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:58 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #196

tlogan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with “just raise taxes solution” is that there is no guarantee that money from taxes is going to be evenly and correctly distributed and spent. This might work for relatively small and single-nationality countries.

What if you raised property taxes with the expectation that the tax isn’t often actually paid? For example, if every piece of real estate had to be traced back to the natural person owner(s) and the property is taxed at the individual level but graduated. Significantly. So no tax at all on the least valuable property you own, 50% tax on the next least valuable property, 100% tax on the next least, etc. With the goal…

Yes, a progressive tax over all your possession is a much better solution than just raising prices. People with high income don't really care about high prices and have enough opportunity to delegate these costs to others.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#214

Post by bsedlm » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:24 PM UTC

dgfitz wrote: post #93

colechristensen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't directly redistribute. You set taxes and economic policies to target free-market wealth redistribution. That is, find instances where there is significant distribution of money from the poor to the rich and find ways to add friction to those markets. Like landowners renting out housing. Suck large amounts of money out of the housing market by taxing commercial loans used for residential real estate, doublin…

> Have economists model how these things will actually effect the markets with the goal of turning residential housing into a bad investment and dropping prices. I imagine the costs would still get passed down to the tenants. Ignoring that for a second, rental housing isn’t “an evil thing that needs to go away.” Rental housing is very much a fundamental need for a lot of people. Military members who move every 3 year…

> rental housing isn’t “an evil thing that needs to go away.”

I disagree, rental housing is a thing that does need to go away, or at least be severly limited.

Because there's a strong trend towards corporations owning all housing and then everybody must rent from them.

(as a milenial my chances of owning the place I live in are small... specially in big cities; I looked into it, I would need to get a loan and then pay the loan amount twice over for the next 30 years to buy a shitty small appartment without a real kitchen).

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#215

Post by dgfitz » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

bsedlm wrote: post #214

dgfitz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have economists model how these things will actually effect the markets with the goal of turning residential housing into a bad investment and dropping prices. I imagine the costs would still get passed down to the tenants. Ignoring that for a second, rental housing isn’t “an evil thing that needs to go away.” Rental housing is very much a fundamental need for a lot of people. Military members who move every 3 year…

> rental housing isn’t “an evil thing that needs to go away.” I disagree, rental housing is a thing that does need to go away, or at least be severly limited. Because there's a strong trend towards corporations owning all housing and then everybody must rent from them. (as a milenial my chances of owning the place I live in are small... specially in big cities; I looked into it, I would need to get a loan and then pa…

You’re contradicting yourself. Where would you live right now if you weren’t renting?

You’re also creating artificial limitations. Nobody said you’re entitled to own the place your currently live, you’re creating that restriction. 200k gets you a whole lot of house in the south and Midwest. Choosing to live in a city and bitch about affordability is quite a millennial thing to do though, since you’ve already self-identified.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#216

Post by tehjoker » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #203

tehjoker wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comparison always leaves out the larger mountains of skulls created created under capitalism, the Nazi regime for one, the 900k+ COVID deaths in the US, the intentional famine in Bengal [0], etc. It's a long list that is rarely considered. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church...

I love how tankies seem to think the only economic system apart from communism is capitalism. We have fascism with the Nazis and mercantilism with British colonial territories, but somehow it's all capitalism because it lets them pretend to win arguments without needing to actually learn how different economic systems work.

Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. There are many ways to organize capitalism, but this is its essential feature.

Likewise, there are many ways to organize socialism, where the means of production are owned collectively. Some may more more desirable than others. There have been fewer experiments with socialism than capitalism, and those that have existed have some good features and some bad features.

There are some good features to capitalism, but it has long exhausted its progressive character. For example, its good at producing lots of consumer goods. Its weaknesses are an inexorable drive to imperialism, the subjugation of the working class, and a kind of environmental death drive where it can't stop itself.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#217

Post by bsedlm » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 8:11 PM UTC

dgfitz wrote: post #215

bsedlm wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rental housing isn’t “an evil thing that needs to go away.” I disagree, rental housing is a thing that does need to go away, or at least be severly limited. Because there's a strong trend towards corporations owning all housing and then everybody must rent from them. (as a milenial my chances of owning the place I live in are small... specially in big cities; I looked into it, I would need to get a loan and then pa…

You’re contradicting yourself. Where would you live right now if you weren’t renting? You’re also creating artificial limitations. Nobody said you’re entitled to own the place your currently live, you’re creating that restriction. 200k gets you a whole lot of house in the south and Midwest. Choosing to live in a city and bitch about affordability is quite a millennial thing to do though, since you’ve already self-ide…

> You’re contradicting yourself. Where would you live right now if you weren’t renting?

my parent's house? a friend's couch? My own appartment or house? (I suppose even millenials could inherit property).

I do not understand why you are saying that I'm contradicting myself. What I do see, is that you seem to be defending the custom of having to pay a recurrent fee to have a roof over your head, a custom which I stand against.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#218

Post by dgfitz » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 8:42 PM UTC

bsedlm wrote: post #217

dgfitz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re contradicting yourself. Where would you live right now if you weren’t renting? You’re also creating artificial limitations. Nobody said you’re entitled to own the place your currently live, you’re creating that restriction. 200k gets you a whole lot of house in the south and Midwest. Choosing to live in a city and bitch about affordability is quite a millennial thing to do though, since you’ve already self-ide…

> You’re contradicting yourself. Where would you live right now if you weren’t renting? my parent's house? a friend's couch? My own appartment or house? (I suppose even millenials could inherit property). I do not understand why you are saying that I'm contradicting myself. What I do see, is that you seem to be defending the custom of having to pay a recurrent fee to have a roof over your head, a custom which I stand…

I’m not defending it, simply pointing out glaring holes in your logic

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#219

Post by kansface » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #180

kansface wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this scenario, I can only assume that corporations are not subject to the same tax, less you would destroy every medium to large business that competes internationally? This would be all domestic manufacturing for instance. If so, I don’t imagine that funneling even larger amounts of capital into corporations is what you have in mind. The point isn’t that the tax couldn’t be paid for, it that it’s an extremely per…

The tax could be imposed on the owners of corporations. It boggles my mind that a 1% tax is a cap on the size of a business. The other way to raise the money is that the business could sell something, such as a product.

A tax on capitalization is fundamentally different than one on profit or income. A chip fab is a 20 billion investment over 3 or more years. They'd pay out upwards of a billion dollars before they begin to sell anything. Any domestic industry that is capital intensive with low margins or high risk would die.

A wealth tax is a terrible incentive for investment and growth of local businesses.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#220

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

dgfitz wrote: post #218

bsedlm wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re contradicting yourself. Where would you live right now if you weren’t renting? my parent's house? a friend's couch? My own appartment or house? (I suppose even millenials could inherit property). I do not understand why you are saying that I'm contradicting myself. What I do see, is that you seem to be defending the custom of having to pay a recurrent fee to have a roof over your head, a custom which I stand…

I’m not defending it, simply pointing out glaring holes in your logic

[deleted]