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

American Equity

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 552 posts

Re: American Equity

#341

Post by leifaffles »

touchofevil wrote: post #285
leifaffles wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is pure democracy a good thing in and of itself?

Because it's harder to corrupt a "pure" democracy. If you have a policy that is bad for the population at large, but good for your own interests, in a "pure" democracy then you will have to convince a majority of the voters to vote against their own interests.

I honestly don't really think you've thought this out.

You might want to understand the existing structure of government before you propose replacing it on a whim.

Here are some questions to get you started:

* Why is there a Constitution?

* Why are there 3 co-equal branches of government? What are they all there for?

* Why is there an electoral college?

* Why are Senators allocated by state while House members are allocated by population?

* Why do House members have 2 year terms and Senators have 6 year terms?

* Why do the courts exist?

* Why does the executive branch exist?

Re: American Equity

#342

Post by leifaffles »

touchofevil wrote: post #281
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, well perhaps (I'm venturing into the unknown here) the problem isn't really protecting the majority from the minority (or vice versa) but protecting the weak from the powerful. When I see proposals like: >end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing I think those are good because they weaken the powerful (the current majority party and the rich) to enable the weak. But I also believe that without the senate…

Well, the real question to me is do we think of people who live in Wyoming as "Wyomingers" and those in CA as Californians? I don't think so. We just think of everyone in the USA as Americans. So why should it be that some Americans (those who live in Wyoming) having outsized voting power over national laws? A minority of Americans is controlling the country via the methods I mentioned. It doesn't seem to be working…

There are existing answers to these questions. It's not a grand mystery.

Instead of merely repeating the questions, you should explain why the answers to those questions are wrong.

I think you're overly consumed with the political dramas of the present and haven't really thought through questions about what a good system of governance looks like.

Re: American Equity

#343

Post by saas_co_de »

RivieraKid wrote: post #46
smeyer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth Just to clarify, nobody in the US is doing this, but it's not unheard of elsewhere. For example, Norway has a wealth tax of about 0.85% and there are some other examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples .

The drawback of taxing wealth is that it distorts markets, it discourages saving. EDIT: Can't comment ("You're posting too fast, blah blah blah"). Here are some replies to the comments bellow: > It's encouraging people to make their money be productive instead of stashing it under a mattress. When you have money in the bank, you're effectively lending most of it to other people. Your money is "productive", which is e…

> it discourages saving.

Taxing wealth encourages investment because you have to turn a yearly return in excess of the wealth tax to not have your wealth shrink.

The incentives to be wealthy will never disappear. Taxing wealth just makes it harder and makes sure that those who are wealthy work for it.

Re: American Equity

#344

Post by carapace »

The idea, as phrased, makes no sense [to me].

However, the thing I think you want to do...

Well, do it.

Start ACME Ultra-Automation Inc., hand out shares, and sell widgets.

-----

edit: In case it's not clear, I'm serious. I want to do this, and would, but I lack hustle.

Re: American Equity

#345

Post by leifaffles »

sova wrote: post #280
leifaffles wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does basically every economist disagree that "capitalism is fundamentally broken"? Is that because they don't "understand the dynamics of how economies work"?

Be cause the incentives are not ethically nor morally guided.

This doesn't mean anything.

Which ethics? Which morals? Yours?

Re: American Equity

#346

Post by pgroves »

This sounds somewhat like "Privatizing Social Security" that was a big topic under George W Bush. The part of your taxes that go toward Social Security would instead go into something like an IRA that is restricted to only buy relatively safe things like diversified funds.

It's not quite the same but there is extensive existing material to cherry-pick ideas from. E.g. https://socialsecurity.procon.org/

Re: American Equity

#347

Post by throw2016 »

With the current explosion of neoliberal and libertarian extremists UBI is nearly impossible to pull off in this country, but hats off for trying. There has to be some value in at least trying something.

It's everything they hate, stealing money from their worshiped 'supermen job creators' to give unearned handouts to 'lazy others'. These ideologues care about 'society' only in as much as facilitating 'great individuals'.

The kind of hate campaign that will be launched to stop this in its tracks if it becomes anything more than wide-eyed utopianism will be unparalleled in history. Any so called experiments will be sabotaged with prejudice and fail.

Re: American Equity

#348

Post by saas_co_de »

newmanships wrote: post #110
conductr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's encouraging people to make their money be productive instead of stashing it under a mattress. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

The rich aren't stashing most of their money under a mattress. Gates, Bezos, etc are worth billions, but that wealth is almost all based off of the stock prices in the companies they own percentagess of.

Yes they are. They are shifting trillions into tax free foundations, trillions offshore, and trillions into corporate stock buy backs.

When you have trillions you just need a bigger mattress, like Ireland, for instance.

Re: American Equity

#349

Post by dragonwriter »

throw2016 wrote: post #347

With the current explosion of neoliberal and libertarian extremists UBI is nearly impossible to pull off in this country, but hats off for trying. There has to be some value in at least trying something. It's everything they hate, stealing money from their worshiped 'supermen job creators' to give unearned handouts to 'lazy others'. These ideologues care about 'society' only in as much as facilitating 'great individu…

> With the current explosion of neoliberal ideologues

Did I fall asleep and wake up back in 1992? Because in 2017, neoliberalism had been in decline for quite some time in the US, losing influence in both the Republican and Democratic parties (not, of course, to the same alternative in each.)

Re: American Equity

#350

Post by peacetreefrog »

jacquesm wrote: post #16

People already have a share in the GDP. That's what it is, the total domestic product, the sum of all the little parts. The problem is not that people don't have share in it (and this goes for every country, not just for the USA), but that they have a disproportionate share in it. Bill Gates' (to name a random American citizen) has a far larger share in the GDP than most other Americans. If you want to solve that rai…

What are you talking about? I suppose there's technically wiggle room because you said "raise" taxes on the rich (implying that regardless of whatever rich people pay now it should be more). But it's an absolute fiction that rich people don't pay taxes. The top income tax rate is about 43%, and the new GOP tax bill doesn't change that.

Did you know the richest 2.7% of all earners pay > 50% of all receipts collected by the government(1)?

Or that -- when asked explicitly whether the rich should pay more -- most (3/4) people, like you, say "yes", but when asked what the tax rate should be for top earners, precisely 3/4 of respondents said it should be 30% or below(2). Again, the top rate is 43% right now.

(1) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-...

(2) http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=15005

Post reply on HN