Live data from Hacker News

Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

economist.com

361–367 of 367 posts

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Before income tax, nobody had any idea about who was making what. That's precisely why the income tax is socially harmful. It forces people to divulge intimate personal information to the state, under pain of imprisonment. It's nothing less than warrantless mass surveillance. The government having this much information on people creates an information asymmetry in society that makes the state incomparably powerful…

> The government having this much information on people creates an information asymmetry in society that makes the state incomparably powerful relative to private citizens. Government, in a democratic society, is simply the citizens wielding their power collectively. It cannot possibly be more powerful than the citizens it serves.

A democratic system of rules doesn't mean a democratic distribution of power. Rules rarely have their intended effect 100%.

In all democracies, elites form, which wield far more political power, and derive far more benefit from government, than voters.

Even in a perfectly democratic society, giving the majority, acting collectively through their government, so much power over individuals would be dangerous, because it would create enormous rent-seeking opportunities for those who wield the most influence over public opinion and because it would endanger persecuted minorities.

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#362
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE. In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity, yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward.

> In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity We have general relativity. Newtonian gravity is kept around for legacy's sakes and ease of calculation. Also, there is a difference between "different" models of gravity that gives the same results/predictions given the same input and different climate models that give different results/predictions given the same input. > yet we're still pretty sure that if yo…

> We have general relativity. Newtonian gravity is kept around for legacy's sakes and ease of calculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relati...

> This is why climate change advocates are so disappointing. The complete lack of understanding of science and yet that ignorance makes them pretend they are an authority on science.

And are you an authority? I'll concur that I'm not, my field is cosmology. However, all my contemporaries in climate science seem to support the consensus, and here's a source that 97% of publishing climate scientists do [0]. They are an authority, and I think I'll believe them over an armchair intellectual trying to sow doubt on the internet.

[0] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ERL....11d8002C/abstra...

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying. At the very least the dead guy will pay for them to go to Harvard, arrange the appropriate internships, etc. It’s very possible to preserve a class system without actually transferring wealth to your children upon death. Just use your wealth and money to make sure they’re set before you die. Easy-peasy. Just look at the many children of still-Alice b…

> Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough. Inequality is a fundamental part of human existence, but I'd prefer that inequality to be as much as possible an expression of individual merit rather than a financial windfall as a result of parental success. As I mention in another reply, your "inheritance" is what you get while your parents are…

It’s not so much the perfect being the enemy of the good, as the fundamental point being missed.

The goal is to prevent persistent, cross-generational inequality. High inheritance taxes simply won’t accomplish this. Or even come close.

The only policy that had ever achieved the sort of field-evening you want is a very strong public sector.

Providing quality education, job, opportunities to everyone (or at least lots of people).

A good example is Sweden. Sweden had massive asset-inequality. A handful of families are massively wealthy, and the successfully pass that wealth down generations.

Yet Sweden had little income inequality, because of their strong public services.

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough. Inequality is a fundamental part of human existence, but I'd prefer that inequality to be as much as possible an expression of individual merit rather than a financial windfall as a result of parental success. As I mention in another reply, your "inheritance" is what you get while your parents are…

It’s not so much the perfect being the enemy of the good, as the fundamental point being missed. The goal is to prevent persistent, cross-generational inequality. High inheritance taxes simply won’t accomplish this. Or even come close. The only policy that had ever achieved the sort of field-evening you want is a very strong public sector. Providing quality education, job, opportunities to everyone (or at least lots…

My complaint with inheritance is not that perpetuates income inequality (though it may do that). I don't care about income inequality in the abstract, it bothers me not a whit that multi-billionaires prosper while the poorest in the US live merely pretty OK lives.

I simply hate the unfairness of this particular form of wealth transfer: the winners hit the jackpot without even buying a ticket.

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#365
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that capital is a positive feedback loop This requires a lot of the investment environment that isn't a given. Capital loses its feedback loop if inflation outpaces economic growth or if the quality of investment opportunities declines significantly. There is no given that just having $10 million dollars means it will be easy to outpace inflation and not end up with less.

Having 10 million dollars as of 2019 and being unable to at least keep up with inflation means making terrible choices, many, many times over.

Said everyone during a bull market

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#366
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how consumption taxes work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax A property tax takes effect without sales occurring, without the property being used, etc. There is no act of consumption to tax, other than simply existing. And before anyone argues that the use of the land is the consumption, that would only make sense if the value of the house wasn't taken into account as part of the property tax.…

Consumption is not buying a house, the consumption is living in it.

The tax is not based on living in it. Nor is it based on the space it consumes.

Re: Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality

#367
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumption is not buying a house, the consumption is living in it.

The tax is not based on living in it. Nor is it based on the space it consumes.

No. And if you buy an apple pie, you pay the sales tax on it, even if you give it to your kids to eat. And the sales tax is based on the price of the apple pie, not how many apples it contains.

It is still a consumption tax. If you rent the house out to others, presumably you'll pass on the consumption tax (or not, it doesn't matter).

Post reply on HN