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

Abolish Billionaires

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Abolish Billionaires

#51

Post by happytoexplain »

wonder_er wrote: post #39
macinjosh wrote: post #27

In 2019 the US federal budget is $4.407 trillion. [1] The combined wealth of America's top 400 billionaires in 2017 was 2.7 trillion. If the social democrats got their dream and took all of their money we could fund the government for only about seven months. When will D.C. and the American people realize that tax rates aren't the problem?! It's the spending stupid! Edit: Yep, keep downvoting facts people. That will…

Pointing out how high the base-line level of incompetence of the government seems ineffective. I think the line of reasoning is something like this: > "The rich" are bad, we need the government to save us from them. The government is underfunded, so when it takes money from the rich, it'll be funded enough to become competent. The federal debt is $20 trillion. The 400 billionaires and their 2.7 trillion is about 15%…

>I think the line of reasoning is something like this: "The rich" are bad, we need the government to save us from them.

Isn't the argument that extreme wealth disparity is bad, and that government is one of the best and/or only vectors for affecting societal problems on such a massive scale? Your version sounds mangled on purpose to make half of the people in the discussion look bad.

Re: Abolish Billionaires

#52

Post by happytoexplain »

manigandham wrote: post #32

Putting aside moral issues, taxes don't redistribute wealth. They just give it to the government. How is the government going to be suddenly better at managing money? What leadership controls this new spending? What makes them so much better? This is the day 2 stuff that never gets any thought, and yet is the critical piece of this theory.

I too would like to see this half of the proposal. Surely there must be educated writing out there somewhere about the less dramatic part of the story.

Re: Abolish Billionaires

#53

Post by happytoexplain »

imgabe wrote: post #15
ryandvm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right, but I don't think you could have made a less persuasive argument.

I doubt anyone who doesn't immediately dismiss this as nonsense is capable of being persuaded by any kind of rational argument.

This kind of black and white vitriol actively drives people away from what you're saying.

Re: Abolish Billionaires

#56

Post by boardwaalk »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #45
Gustomaximus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe this? The democrats are on the whole not against billionaires, there is simply an increase in popularity to make billionaire pay more tax. Something closer to historical levels no less. Then people make comments like this and try and things into a storm in a teacup....I wonder if this is how they truly see the policy or its just cheap internet comments.

I only know what I read. "Coates followed up: "I hate to personalize this, but do you think it is moral for individuals to, for instance—do we live in a moral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome?" The answer from the congresswoman [AOC] was emphatic and came without any hesitation. "No, it's not. It's not. It's not. And I think it's important to say that." https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/2…

If you read your own quote from Coates, he reformulates his question midstream. Is a world with billionaires moral? Is that a moral outcome?

He's not asking if billionaires are moral people. That's not the same question.

Re: Abolish Billionaires

#57

Post by dazilcher »

Glench wrote: post #41

The concentration of the vast majority of wealth in the hands of a small number of people is obviously an unbalanced and unjust system that can't continue to work.

It's been this way forever. What is the forcing function you believe will lead to a change now?

Re: Abolish Billionaires

#59

Post by Gustomaximus »

boardwaalk wrote: post #56
pnw_hazor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only know what I read. "Coates followed up: "I hate to personalize this, but do you think it is moral for individuals to, for instance—do we live in a moral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome?" The answer from the congresswoman [AOC] was emphatic and came without any hesitation. "No, it's not. It's not. It's not. And I think it's important to say that." https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/2…

If you read your own quote from Coates, he reformulates his question midstream. Is a world with billionaires moral? Is that a moral outcome? He's not asking if billionaires are moral people. That's not the same question.

The bigger point is how they take the statement of one person and make out like is applies to the group.

Anyone can twist an arguement to any POV like this. Its cheap debate method and seems typically fanatics trying to avoid reality of a reasonable conversation on a topic.

Post reply on HN