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

Are super-rich people just better at making money?

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 587 posts

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

#251

Post by nobodyandproud »

543g43g43 wrote: post #221
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

That's the very definition of cherry picking. Try this dataset instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...

According to the third list (Hurun), the UK is keeping pace with the US.

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

#252

Post by feet »

bawolff wrote: post #206
Yizahi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See step 4?

They should probably add in an increased capital gains tax as well

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

#253

Post by feet »

robertlagrant wrote: post #248
Yizahi wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For independent financial auditor - none that I can think of. For offshore restrictions - you as a country lose all existing assets already there. A lot of people will move their business to a better countries, providing less restrictions and eventually taxes for them. Probably election loss and further dismantling of all these laws by disgrunted businessmen using their pocket political forces. If will hugely depend…

I think inheritance tax has huge downsides. Past a certain age, if you've done reasonably well, and are thus most likely to make a huge impact for the better in your latter working years, why do that most useful useful work if you can't pass it on?

You can pass it on, but you have to pay taxes on it

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

#254

Post by feet »

bawolff wrote: post #224
bmitc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should corporations be allowed to purchase homes in the first place? Remove that or heavily tax it.

I don't think its that unreasonable that big apartment complexes are owned by corporations.

Is a large apartment complex considered a home? I've never lived in an entire complex, only one unit

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

#255

Post by A_Venom_Roll »

donatj wrote: post #195

The whole yard sale model suffers from the fallacy that there is a predefined amount of wealth. If that were true, we’d have exactly as much wealth as our cavemen brethren did, which is clearly not the case. Every time anyone creates something more valuable than the sum of its parts, value is added to the system. A bow is far more valuable than the wood used to build it. A hammer and nails far more valuable than the…

> Every time anyone creates something more valuable than the sum of its parts, value is added to the system.

I really like this angle, although the value of 'something' can vary for different people.

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

#256

Post by IntrepidWorm »

robertlagrant wrote: post #248
Yizahi wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For independent financial auditor - none that I can think of. For offshore restrictions - you as a country lose all existing assets already there. A lot of people will move their business to a better countries, providing less restrictions and eventually taxes for them. Probably election loss and further dismantling of all these laws by disgrunted businessmen using their pocket political forces. If will hugely depend…

I think inheritance tax has huge downsides. Past a certain age, if you've done reasonably well, and are thus most likely to make a huge impact for the better in your latter working years, why do that most useful useful work if you can't pass it on?

Do the work because it's enjoyable. If it's no longer enjoyable, enjoy your wealth while you have it, and retire.

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

#257

Post by [deleted] »

klgkjghkjh wrote: post #246
hestefisk wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it hard? Tax capital gains, tax inheritance, tax corporate super profits, tax consumption (vat), tax FX / currency / speculative securities trading (Tobin tax), etc. It’s not hard, our politicians just lack the will and would rather drive a race to the bottom (“tax reforms”).

The rich won't leave? See Europe

[deleted]

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

#258

Post by gabesullice »

gyulai wrote: post #233
gabesullice wrote: post #97

This is a dishonest piece. It ignores that it's based on a zero-sum game and the world isn't zero sum. The quoted economists know that very well. I like that the coin flip game illustrates the concept of compounding interest, but it doesn't model wealth creation at all. Most new ventures aren't I-win-you-lose, they're we-win-or-I-lose. Wealthy people really can take bigger bets more frequently like the article sugges…

That sounds interesting. Did you run the simulation?

I didn't. The interesting and difficult part would be that every agent could play a different strategy. It's fine to take $0.30 every round, you can play forever. Some people with a $1.00 would bet three times in a row, lose, and go bust.

Edit: if you run it, I'd love to see and play with it!

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

#259

Post by popcorncowboy »

donatj wrote: post #195

The whole yard sale model suffers from the fallacy that there is a predefined amount of wealth. If that were true, we’d have exactly as much wealth as our cavemen brethren did, which is clearly not the case. Every time anyone creates something more valuable than the sum of its parts, value is added to the system. A bow is far more valuable than the wood used to build it. A hammer and nails far more valuable than the…

Nonsense. It doesn't have to be a perfect model to still be a useful one. It's precisely because it's so unintuitive that it's interesting. Your introduction of a positive sum mechanic doesn't invalidate the model. Introducing a $new_value component still begs questions around who gets access to that value - and if the yard sale model holds, even perfectly equal distribution of that $new_value suffers from exponential outcome drift for anything except ridiculously high ratios of $new:$old - and in the real world, value is disproportionately captured by the already wealthy [0].

But hey, internet for you lazy proles, pull yourselves up by your shoelaces etc.

[0] - https://wir2022.wid.world -- The richest 1% captured 38% of all new wealth since '95, the bottom 50% captured 2%.

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

#260

Post by pixelfarmer »

jmeister wrote: post #201
bmitc wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Well, what is "economy"? Economy exists because we split work, and we do that to optimize taking care of our needs. I make tools for more efficient hunting, you do more efficient hunting with that in order to get food not just for you, but for others, including me, with these. It also means if machines do most of that work there will actually be less economy, but more free time for humans.

If you look at what is commonly called "economy", more and more of what is done there actually has a negative real economic value, it effectively hurts humans. The reason behind that is how we measure this economic value: It is completely broken. But as long as people strongly believe in this garbage, everything is focused on that, even it is trailed by chaos and destruction.

So capitalism, at least in its current form (neo-liberalism), fails as hard as socialism or communism, for that matter. Reason for that: Humans.

I also don't think anyone expects completely equal distribution of everything, but things are so far off in the other corner by now that something needs to be done, fast.

Post reply on HN