It would be interesting to know what Altman means by "I’d like feedback on the following idea." It strikes me that (a) YC already has researchers working on this, and (b) there's a massive literature in political philosophy (the work of Philippe van Parijs is a good start) on the subject. So I'm not sure what feedback he wants from a short blog post, through whatever medium Internet people can communicate with him.
American Equity
421–430 of 552 posts
Re: American Equity
#422"I believe that owning something like a share in America would align all of us in making the country as successful as possible"
This assumes that everyone is cooperating together. I had a discussion with my friend about this and not everyone who plays a game (in this case making the country successful) tries to optimize globally, some optimize locally or just don't care. Ever played a video game and been TK'd?
While this sounds good in theory, I don't think works in reality.
Re: American Equity
#423Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan, numbers, etc to actually critique, Which is odd because he specifically ask you to give feedback but never follows through on presenting the actual idea. He does motivate why he thinks a share of the GDP is so he gets the why, but never actually gets into the what, and how. I mean the GDP isn't…
An annual bonus just for being an American.
s/bonus/dividend/
Alaska does this [1]. The only problem with the idea is that some things aren't considered GDP while they grow the pie - open source and volunteering being good examples.
Re: American Equity
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a header of "American" on this very post, and it's specifically talking about the US, so I'm starting there. The biggest potential cost of someone in the US, with employer-tied healthcare, seems like medical. You could hit the unlucky jackpot and have a seven-figure+ medical bill over the course of a few years or life. So let's set "able to handle that for yourself and your family" as the baseline for being c…
All fair points, but even within the US, $5m goes as far in some states as $50m does in some cities. Besides that, one person's "personal safety net and toys" is another person's "not enough", is another person's "greed". Meanwhile, you're getting taxed on the estate you're trying to build as you build it. Twice. Every year. As someone who's currently attempting to build his own personal empire, I'm incredibly glad I…
A 1% wealthtax is nothing to be scared of (I'm living with it), if you can't make 1% on your capital you are doing something wrong.
Re: American Equity
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think becoming wealthy is incentive enough to become wealthy. No one is going to stop trying to be wealthy just because they might get taxed for that wealth. If anything, they will just try to hide it in another state. But the argument that a wealth tax would remove any incentive to become wealthy is not very strong.
If a lottery ticket's prices goes up, and the purse goes down and/or the odds get longer, you'll be less inclined to buy a ticket. It's the same with work. If hard work is less likely to pay off, or if you'll have to work harder, or both, you'll be less likely to work harder. Some people will work harder anyways, and many will be discouraged. Marginal effects matter. This is why dynamic analysis is important.
[deleted]
Re: American Equity
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm persuaded that wealth taxes and maximum income are the appropriate solution: after X million per year, you don't get more money, and after you and your family heap up Y million of _fluidly defined_ assets, you get taxed on what you hold/control/manage-via-tax-shelter. Obliterate the tax shelters, obliterate the tax havens, bring the money back home under threat of criminal law. I'm not saying you can't be a fat c…
Everybody tends to put that certain point above where they are at. I realize, as limited to a US discussion, it is easy to say Bezos and Gates are rich, I am not. But if this was expanded, simply as a thought experiment, to the entire world would you be fine classified as a "fat cat"? Assuming (perhaps incorrectly) you are in the US, you are also reading Hacker News, so you are probably the top 1% of the worlds wealt…
This sort of logic is also why it's hard to get this sort of legislation passed nowadays.
Media has done a good job of raising awareness of the problems of wealth disparity, and a lot of people nod along.
But no matter how wealthy someone is, they can always point to the more-rich and say those people are the problem and should be taxed, not themselves.
Re: American Equity
#427"The savage beasts," said he, "in Italy, have their particular dens, they have their places of repose and refuge; but the men who bear arms, and expose their lives for the safety of their country, enjoy in the meantime nothing more in it but the air and light and, having no houses or settlements of their own, are constrained to wander from place to place with their wives and children." He told them that the commanders were guilty of a ridiculous error, when, at the head of their armies, they exhorted the common soldiers to fight for their sepulchres and altars; when not any amongst so many Romans is possessed of either altar or monument, neither have they any houses of their own, or hearths of their ancestors to defend. They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to maintain the luxury and the wealth of other men. They were styled the masters of the world, but in the meantime had not one foot of ground which they could call their own.
Tiberius Gracchus tried to stop the ancient Roman 1% from stealing the wealth of the 99%. They personally clubbed him and 300 supporters to death, beginning the chain of violence that ended the Roman Republic.
Re: American Equity
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the marginal effects of having 100M in the bank over 10M in the bank over 1M over 100K are all still huge for any feasible tax scheme I could imagine. What does your world look like where you'd be too taxed to bother wanting to be financially independent?
#define financially independent That phrase means different things to different people. In some parts of the world, $50k could consider you to be financially independent. $500k in others, and in some parts, you'd need $5m - $50m. What if I told you it cost $5/day to rent a luxury hotel room with cleaning, full board, and high speed broadband provided as standard? What if I told you it cost $1500/month for a small stu…
Out of curiosity, where did you have in mind for the $5 luxury hotel, room, board, and high-speed internet? That sounds like a place many of us might like to put on the docket for later.
Re: American Equity
#429Homesteading act could still be applicable in modern times. Ownership of real property is low and a large part of most American's budget. If people didn't have to pay rent and mortgages every month, everybody but banks would be wealthier.
Not sure it would do a low income person much good to own 50 acres in the middle of nowhere.
Not 50 acres. Give people a quarter acre to 10 acres. So they could still live in or around a small town.
Re: American Equity
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
All fair points, but even within the US, $5m goes as far in some states as $50m does in some cities. Besides that, one person's "personal safety net and toys" is another person's "not enough", is another person's "greed". Meanwhile, you're getting taxed on the estate you're trying to build as you build it. Twice. Every year. As someone who's currently attempting to build his own personal empire, I'm incredibly glad I…
A 1% wealthtax is nothing to be scared of (I'm living with it), if you can't make 1% on your capital you are doing something wrong.
It seems it would have the effect of magnifying down markets. (Down 30% in the market? Pay us another 1.2%, please, selling shares if you must; we don't care.)
Over the course of your life, the government will get more of your wealth that you (or those you designate) will. (At 5% CAGR, the government is ahead by year 54. At 3% CAGR, they're ahead at year 56. At 8%, year 52.)