Are super-rich people just better at making money? • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by naasking » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

likelyharrison_ wrote: post #331

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

Heavy taxing is not the take away from the model the article discuses.

The model clearly shows that while heavy taxation does not fully eliminate unequal distribution, it does dramatically suppress the inequality. Completely eliminating inequality is not necessarily a goal.

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

#392

Post by naasking » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #62

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

The top 1% pay 40% of the federal tax revenue. The top 5% pay 60%. California has the highest income tax at 13.3%, the highest federal tax rate is 37%. That makes the top income tax rate 50%.

> That makes the top income tax rate 50%.

While interesting data points, I'm not seeing an argument that they are paying enough, which seems to be your implication. Maybe it should be 90%. Maybe it should be even more.

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

#393

Post by momdad420 » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #338

dontreact wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth isn’t zero sum but power over law (as defined by who has influence over the rules we live by) is. When you have concentration of power due to concentration of wealth, the society will become unstable and undemocratic. So even though wealth isn’t zero sum, wealth inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed for long term stability.

> Wealth isn’t zero sum but power over law… Religious extremism isn’t coming mainly from the wealthy. It’s dominantly a lower-strata southern thing, with notable metastases all around the country, yet it plays strongly in the US system. That some wealthy co-opt the extremists doesn’t change the above.

[dead]

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

#394

Post by olvar_ » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

This model does not resemble a free economy at all. Not only it doesn't consider the wealth-creation aspect of a free economy, but it assumes people "wagers" their wealth. No society does this and is a terrible model of how an economy works. Most people earn their wages, if they have some money left they may save that, but long term saving is not comparable with a bet on a coin flip, if you think it is, then you should not save at all because you will go broke with probability one. Again, that is not what happens in our societies.

Jumping to the conclusion that "taxing the rich" could solve anything is completely wrong. You would just make things more expensive and add extra incentives to take jobs abroad. It doesn't matter that the model is too simplistic, the problem is that this model is too far from reality.

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

#395

Post by tzmudzin » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:23 PM UTC

prottog wrote: post #339

tzmudzin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are wealthy and refuse to earn an income, then your savings will eventually deplete and you’ll become bankrupt. Please look up "rent", "dividend" and "capital gains".

All three things are taxed, so it doesn't factor into this discussion of tax avoidance.

That's not the point the parent was making.

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

#396

Post by maccard » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:23 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #239

maccard wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between never paying it back fully, and never paying it back _at all_.

Interest only mortgage exists in the US. You never pay principle.

An interest only loan doesn't suddenly mean there's no repayments. The hint is in the name, you still have to repeat the interest on the loan. Payment terms may vary but if you think that banks across the US are sitting on interest only, asset backed mortgages for the ultra wealthy's most expensive purchases, and taking no payment from them then I don't think we're going to be able to come to an agreement on this topic.

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

#397

Post by mcculley » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:24 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #319

mcculley wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to imagine how such a proscription would work. Would there be a list of things corporations are disallowed ownership? Who would the seller be required to determine if the entity is appropriate? Or would the local property tax clerk just not allow registration by a non-human entity?

Do you suppose laws and the legal system provide the social infrastructure to support the corporate ownership of housing as property? If so, that - outside of political will - can be modified, deleted even. Without legal support, it will collapse.

I currently lease my apartment unit in a 24 story tower from a corporation. My friend leases a single family home in a suburb from a corporation. Should both of these use cases be eliminated?

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

#398

Post by naasking » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:25 PM UTC

jmeister wrote: post #67

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

This focus on super-rich individuals is totally misguided. What's important is the economic system. Rich individuals are simply a nauseating side-effect of capitalism. Nobody really likes it, but there simply isn't anything better. The burden of proof is on the complainers. Even Marxist-sympathetic Peter Singer gets it. >Look, I think it would be better if you had an economic system in which we didn’t have billionair…

> This focus on super-rich individuals is totally misguided. What's important is the economic system. Rich individuals are simply a nauseating side-effect of capitalism. Nobody really likes it, but there simply isn't anything better. The burden of proof is on the complainers.

Serious critics aren't suggesting we do away with capitalism, they're suggesting that it has negative externalities that can be corrected by better taxation. The focus on billionaires is exactly right, because as the model in the article shows, taxation can suppress the extreme inequality that results.

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

#399

Post by mcculley » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #317

mcculley wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to imagine how such a proscription would work. Would there be a list of things corporations are disallowed ownership? Who would the seller be required to determine if the entity is appropriate? Or would the local property tax clerk just not allow registration by a non-human entity?

There are lists of chemicals people cannot own, why can there not be lists of things corporations cannot own?

I am wondering about the details. Would you prohibit anything that could be used as a residence? Office buildings would be permitted? I live in an apartment unit in a 24 story tower. It is owned by a corporation and I lease it. Would only condos owned by humans be permitted?

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

#400

Post by feet » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

tluyben2 wrote: post #365

mikrl wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have a friend who buys apartment complexes and houses on the company for his employees to live in When railroad and heavy industry did this exact thing in the 19th century we called them robber barons and broke up their obscenely powerful and corrupt monopolies via antitrust legislation.

Anything can be abused, but I don't know the history; I have heard of robber barons, but not in the context of housing and Google doesn't seem to give me more than just their own enormous mansions. It would depend on if it's abused or not, wouldn't it?

You can look up the history of company towns