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

The Angry Rich

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: The Angry Rich

#31

Post by nadadenada »

Here in Spain rich people are not angry, the gov don't want to increase taxes because rich people will fly away, so they are who pay less, why should they be angry?

Pensioners should be the angry people, they will see their pension be lower each year (and nowadays it is extremely difficult to pay for food with an average pension) just to help government to reduce its deficit. They don't have lobbies and this year is not time for election so put more weight on the back of poor old people this is just the face of justice.

Re: The Angry Rich

#32

Post by lutorm »

il wrote: post #25
lutorm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one. Just to be clear, you are stating your moral opinion . There is nothing inherent about these opinions. Just like my opinion that if you are rich you have likely benefited disproportion…

I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc). Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc. If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high…

It's true that if I had grown up in the US and not in Sweden, I might be more tax-averse than I ended up being... There is a difference between what you get in practice for paying your taxes in the US and the principle of taxation in general.

One of the things that amaze/frustrate me about the US taxes is that noone ever suggests that maybe the military budget could be cut by 50% or so...

Re: The Angry Rich

#33

Post by kenjackson »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #21
zdw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call BS on this. You were able to earn that money because: 1. You most likely live in a relatively free society most likely operating under the rule of law. 2. You were able to achieve what you did by "standing on the shoulders of giants". 3. You're most likely the recipient of an education provided by society that gave you the tools and opportunity to succeed. Now, if society says that "Because we've helped you be…

The disagreement isn't about leaving the world the same or better, almost everyone wants that. The argument is which is the superior method for making the world better. On one side you have Krugman who believes you should tax the rich and let the government spend the wealth the rich accumulated to improve conditions for everyone. On the other side you people who think that if you allow people to spend, save and inves…

Krugman's article actually speaks to this in a roundabout way. He seems to contend that side B has given up the pretense that they are trying to make the world a better place.

And I think you've seen some of this in statements from people like the lieutenant governor of South Carolina, when he said, "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better."

Their belief isn't one that they can make the world a better place. But rather of actual superiority (hence they shouldn't be forced to give resources to inferior people). This I do think is a fundamental difference.

Re: The Angry Rich

#34

Post by binspace »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #19

I don't think it's any mystery why the rich are angry. Whether it's right or wrong, they see it this way: "I've spent my entire life working to build wealth. I've sacrificed and it's paid off. Now I'd like to use my wealth in the way I see fit. Whether that's spending it, saving it, investing it or giving it away, it should be my decision, not a government planner's decision." Again, right or wrong, that is how the r…

> Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree.

Except the government tends to heavily subsidize the rich. I'd be happy to get rid of taxes, earmarks, bailouts, pork, etc. I don't expect that to happen without the aid of a collapse, though.

Re: The Angry Rich

#35

Post by amh »

okaramian wrote: post #12
bradleyland wrote: post #6

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. T…

Our economy is an ecosystem. I'm a software developer because there is a demand for it, and the only reason this demand exists is because people are educated enough to use my product. How do you determine the line between what one has earned vs. what one may have been granted via a series of societal issues?

Don't these societal conditions apply to "good" and "bad" software developers alike? All other things being equal, if you're successful and somebody else fails (selling to the same market), then the most obvious explanation is that you met the needs of your customers better and somehow improved their lives. This is signaled by a monetary reward greater than the guy who failed, and proportional to the value you added.

The general prosperity of society is built up by an uncountable number of these successes and rewards. Hand-wringing about whether your own contribution would be possible absent all the prior contributions is putting the cart before the horse. You aren't illicitly skimming profits from society, you're making valuable contributions in your own right.

Re: The Angry Rich

#36

Post by CWuestefeld »

kenjackson wrote: post #26
CWuestefeld wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like those who are voting this comment down are doing so not because the viewpoint it provides is wasting our time, or poorly expressed, or anything like that. This looks to me like nothing but shouting him down because you disagree with what he's got to say. In a case like this, I think you ought to win the battle through superior logic and rhetoric, not just by voting him down so nobody sees his thou…

You really think this is not a waste of time to read? "It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one." And given how extraordinary the claim is, there's not a single argument to support it. It seems like the definition of trolling. A well-reasoned argument for why we should either have no taxes or an extremely regressive tax system would b…

There's nothing extraordinary about the claim. I'd be surprised if there was anyone here who hasn't heard the Objectivist idea that the fruits of ones labor are ones own, and no man has the right to take it.

It sounds now like what you want is not a reminder that there is a valid and consistent moral theory that supports this idea (just as there are alternate theories that arrive at different conclusions). And to be perfectly blunt, this is all that Krugman has done: voice one alternate theory, with no concrete support whatsoever (and that from a Nobel prize-winning economist!).

It seems you're looking for nothing but political punditry. But to me, we should start with a moral code, and then work out how well we're tracking that code. You seem to want the opposite: calculate an answer, and then find a moral code that fits it.

Re: The Angry Rich

#37

Post by gvb »

il wrote: post #25
lutorm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one. Just to be clear, you are stating your moral opinion . There is nothing inherent about these opinions. Just like my opinion that if you are rich you have likely benefited disproportion…

I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc). Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc. If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high…

Statistics are only a google search away. At least make an attempt at a citation to support your assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY... (FY 2009 per the actual graphic, despite the file name)

Re: The Angry Rich

#38

Post by vtnext »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #19

I don't think it's any mystery why the rich are angry. Whether it's right or wrong, they see it this way: "I've spent my entire life working to build wealth. I've sacrificed and it's paid off. Now I'd like to use my wealth in the way I see fit. Whether that's spending it, saving it, investing it or giving it away, it should be my decision, not a government planner's decision." Again, right or wrong, that is how the r…

Another trigger for the uproar these days is the fear that Krugman and his ilk are allowed to conduct grand social experiments with the economy. Many see huge economics experiments like the Great Moderation as the cause of our ills, and expect the worst from risky proposals from economists and politicians.

Re: The Angry Rich

#39

Post by CWuestefeld »

zdw wrote: post #30
zzzmarcus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disagreement isn't about leaving the world the same or better, almost everyone wants that. The argument is which is the superior method for making the world better. On one side you have Krugman who believes you should tax the rich and let the government spend the wealth the rich accumulated to improve conditions for everyone. On the other side you people who think that if you allow people to spend, save and inves…

If the goal is to create economic activity... - Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it, and not in them going out and spending it right now. - Taking actions that result in someone who is just scraping by having more money is more likely to result in them spending that money right now. If the goal is to get the economy moving again, I tend t…

Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it

Ummmm. What do you think that saving and investing are?

Surely the rich guy isn't saving by stashing the money under his mattress, or he wouldn't have gotten rich in the first place.

Perhaps he's putting the money in the bank, in which case it's going to be used to underwrite someone's mortgage, or something like that.

Perhaps he's investing it in the stock market. But support of equities means that he's financing business, which is just another way of saying that he's helping to create jobs.

someone who is just scraping by having more money is more likely to result in them spending that money right now

Assuming that's true, what comes of it. I picture that person going out and buying a nice new HDTV from Sony, and much of that money going to Japan rather than sticking around in America.

Obviously I've picked my examples to tilt in one direction. But it ought to illustrate that what many people seem to believe is obvious common sense is far from that, and perhaps even, counter-intuitively, turns out the opposite.

Re: The Angry Rich

#40

Post by il »

kenjackson wrote: post #28
il wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc). Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc. If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high…

These claims need citations. And remember, we don't just pay federal income taxes. We also pay state incomes tax (most states), sales tax (most states and locales), property tax, item taxes (like luxury taxes), FICA tax, etc... While I'm sure a LOT of money goes to the military, I'm not sure I believe it is most of it.

Maybe if more Americans knew how much we were spending on war they would be less inclined to support it. "Death and Taxes" is a well-known and clear infographic of government spending: http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

It shows military and security spending as 63% of the 2011 budget(895 billion).

The discussion here seems mostly about the income tax, so I'm focusing on that. I'm not morally opposed to paying taxes to live in a civilized society. I AM opposed to two thirds of my money being spent on instruments of death and building up the American war machine.

Post reply on HN