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

Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#31

Post by larsiusprime »

Just want to point out two things:

1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate, while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat.

2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on his interview [2] with Piketty and Piketty essentially conceded the point.

Tyler implied therefore that the natural conclusion is Georgism[3]

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall...

[2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/

[3] http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-rec...

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#32

Post by jkmghkjhg »

ForHackernews wrote: post #28
cee_el123 wrote: post #2

( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book ) ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )

100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

This wouldn't force the rich to move elsewhere?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#33

Post by cmsonger »

ForHackernews wrote: post #28
cee_el123 wrote: post #2

( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book ) ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )

100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

I could not agree with this more.

It feels like trust fund babies are pretty much everything that the US is not supposed to be about. Whenever I'm in a mood to discuss politics and someone brings up the "death tax" I say something like: "I agree, the world absolutely needs more people like Paris Hilton." (Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but I think that she's a visible example that people resonate with.)

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#36

Post by jhgfjhgfjgh »

zach_garwood wrote: post #18
xhkkffbf wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Musk is a bad example, he didn't actually invent or develop those things you mentioned, he just acts as the figurehead. If he disappeared today, the only thing we would miss would be his hot Twitter takes.

No post body was provided.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#37

Post by throwaway1777 »

jkmghkjhg wrote: post #32
ForHackernews wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

This wouldn't force the rich to move elsewhere?

It would, so you also need capital controls.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#38

Post by Bubble_Pop_22 »

exabrial wrote: post #9
xhkkffbf wrote: post #3

[flagged]

^ Precisely. To add to your point: In order for something to be unequal, it had to be obtained via unethical means. This is because the sum of morality of small transactions is transitive. Breaking it down in simple terms: If you voluntarily give your free-earned money to Jeff Bezos, it's an ethical transaction. If millions of people do it, they're all ethical transactions. If Jeff Bezos becomes a go-zillionaire, it'…

> If you voluntarily give your free-earned money to Jeff Bezos, it's an ethical transaction. If millions of people do it, they're all ethical transactions. If Jeff Bezos becomes a go-zillionaire, it's moral and ethical.

Every transaction can be reversed with violence, a much more elegant form of chargeback

Also stop it. Each and every time the same thing. Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon and basically every company in the history of mankind shows that once an organization becomes large enough it doesn't really matter who is at the figurative helm.

Countries could expropriate billionaires and nothing would really change, they don't do for 2 reasons:

1) because a certain mass of people are so deluded that they think that one day they'll become one, so they panic because the 0.0000000001% of chances they had becomes 0%.

2) Other countries would start a race to the bottom so if the US decides to expropriate then Canada could go come here we only take 80%!, Switzerland could say 50%! Bahamas could then scream 10% all the way down.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#39

Post by criticalkoala »

larsiusprime wrote: post #31

Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate , while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on hi…

No post body was provided.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#40

Post by Aunche »

pasquinelli wrote: post #10
colechristensen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reduce rent seeking, promote local agriculture university outreach programs, gently trim back on waste, promote competition in stagnated fields. There’s not a radical solution where something bold needs to be done. There’s a lot of mundane progress that needs to be done, but before it’s done it needs to be identified and prioritized.

a real attempt to reduce rent seeking would probably lead to civil war.

People pay 50% of their income in taxes in states like California without rioting, so I don't see why attempts to reduce rent seeking would be any different. Any income generated from an land value tax is money that can be saved with less efficient forms of taxation. IMO, this has more to do with lack of economic knowledge rather than anything else. People don't realize that making housing affordable completely opposite from making it a good investment.
Post reply on HN