Live data from Hacker News

I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

heterocephalusgabler.wordpress.com

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#51
post #38

Not related,but I would like to mention this regardless: >>No party will suggest the rational solutions: if hard work makes us rich, let’s tax inheritance at 85%, so the children of rich men have to work hard too. But no: that would never do I never understood this argument. I am not rich by any means,but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic - I worked hard to earn…

You want to give money/goods to your children so that they have a easier life and need to work less to get the same decent life as anybody. This is totally valid, up to a certain point. Let's take the other extrem, when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life. There is absolutely no need of such a concentration of wealth. That's why inheritance should have…

>>when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life

Why not? If I, as a parent, worked hard enough to make life easy for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't do it?(I mean in general, don't take this personally) I have paid tax on everything that I made, bought, or built - why would they pay tax on the same things again??

Following your argument, we should stop giving our children absolutely anything - you could argue that someone's child should not be given a phone or a car,because it's unfair towards someone else who had to work for it,right? But then why do you care - I worked hard to buy those things to give to my children. Anything else is irrelevant.

I can give you another example which makes me hate inheritance tax with passion - I know a family, which had a house which was owned by them for centuries. And then, when the parents died,they didn't have a lot of money, so the only thing left was that house. HMRC enters the scene -> children have to pay inheritance tax on the house. There is no money left,so they have to sell their family house, purely because people think it would be "unfair" for them to keep it. Absolute BS if you ask me.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#52
post #22

I can understand the frustration of the author, however, HuffPo is not a government or social entity. It IS part of the free market. I am a huge proponent of the free market, however, that does not mean the free market will be perfect. In the short term, there are fits and starts and cycles that everything goes through, but it is only through the free market that we will progress over the long-term. Writers are unfor…

But what is the actual benefit of the HuffPo platform? I don't think anyone sees "HuffPo Contributor" as a byline and considers the author to somehow be a legitimate writer. Nor does HuffPo give any percentage of ad revenue. The best possible scenario is that readers get used to seeing your name on the Huffington Post, so they return for your future posts. Great. You don't get paid for them either. Can you point out…

> I don't think anyone sees "HuffPo Contributor" as a byline and considers the author to somehow be a legitimate writer.

Well you'd be wrong; writing on there regularly lands people on political talk shows and helps them gain visibility as a writer.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#53
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to give money/goods to your children so that they have a easier life and need to work less to get the same decent life as anybody. This is totally valid, up to a certain point. Let's take the other extrem, when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life. There is absolutely no need of such a concentration of wealth. That's why inheritance should have…

>>when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life Why not? If I, as a parent, worked hard enough to make life easy for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't do it?(I mean in general, don't take this personally) I have paid tax on everything that I made, bought, or built - why would they pay tax on the same things again?? Following your argument, we sh…

f I, as a parent, worked hard enough to make life easy for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't do it?

The point is to increase your children's (that is, everyone's) reliance on the government, of course. The ideal for statists would be to remove parents from the equation completely. You've read Brave New World, right?

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#54

Not related,but I would like to mention this regardless: >>No party will suggest the rational solutions: if hard work makes us rich, let’s tax inheritance at 85%, so the children of rich men have to work hard too. But no: that would never do I never understood this argument. I am not rich by any means,but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic - I worked hard to earn…

> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic. No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. > I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value?? Yes, and that's yours, not…

>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them.

This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my duties for the money I made.

>> without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy.

So why don't we send everyone for a mandatory work in orphanages or homeless shelters for a couple months,if its about teaching people a lesson? Since when is it the governments job to make people " understand what it means to not be wealthy."?

>>inherited wealth is anathema to democracy.

So why don't we ban it altogether? Once you hit 18 years of age, you are given a government-built apartament, $1000 pocket money, and off you go, enjoy democracy. Meanwhile, if you die, all your possessions can go to the government who will make sure that your wealth is redistributed to the greatest benefit of the society. Sounds like the right kind of democracy to me.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#55

The same guy contacted me and I've submitted a couple of pieces since. He was very upfront and clear about what was being offered, i.e. submit the things you're writing anyway to us, and subject to editorial discretion they may be featured on some hugely-trafficked section, else just archived on "the blog". For doing this they offer you a small profile with various links: to your amazon books, your website, twitter,…

If you look from the right angle everything it's win-win, the point is how much one win is worth compared to the other. Your boss tells you he would totally give you money if you do some boring chores he doesn't want to do, it's win-win. But if he gives you $1000 and then proceeds to make 10 times that with the product of your work, then it's actually a WIN-win for him.

I don't think this is a strong argument, how is everything win-win? What if I get hit by a car on the way home, is that win-win?Likewise getting fair compensation for a task, do boring/hard chores get money, isn't win-win it's zero-sum.

Re: the last sentence, welcome to capitalism where we don't typically evenly share out the earnings from anything.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#57
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: We need taxes. The questions is only what kind of taxes. The inheritance tax is a very democratic tax and benefits society as a whole. And it is good for your kids. See also http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/269796/listen-to-adam-sm...

It might be fair and it might be progressive, but how is it "democratic"?

Because it takes from a few people and gives to many. More people would vote for it than not.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#58
post #22

I can understand the frustration of the author, however, HuffPo is not a government or social entity. It IS part of the free market. I am a huge proponent of the free market, however, that does not mean the free market will be perfect. In the short term, there are fits and starts and cycles that everything goes through, but it is only through the free market that we will progress over the long-term. Writers are unfor…

But what is the actual benefit of the HuffPo platform? I don't think anyone sees "HuffPo Contributor" as a byline and considers the author to somehow be a legitimate writer. Nor does HuffPo give any percentage of ad revenue. The best possible scenario is that readers get used to seeing your name on the Huffington Post, so they return for your future posts. Great. You don't get paid for them either. Can you point out…

HuffPo should not be a writer's full-time job. It should be used as a platform to drive traffic/attention towards something else that you're working on.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic. No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. > I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value?? Yes, and that's yours, not…

>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my duties for the money I made. >> without having the benefit of having worked for…

Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking.

Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#60
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life Why not? If I, as a parent, worked hard enough to make life easy for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't do it?(I mean in general, don't take this personally) I have paid tax on everything that I made, bought, or built - why would they pay tax on the same things again?? Following your argument, we sh…

f I, as a parent, worked hard enough to make life easy for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't do it? The point is to increase your children's (that is, everyone's) reliance on the government, of course. The ideal for statists would be to remove parents from the equation completely. You've read Brave New World , right?

Is this a parody of a libertarian comment?

The point is that people should stand on their own two feet, and not coast through life on daddy's money (or government largesse, for that matter).

Post reply on HN