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

Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#91

Post by CraigJPerry »

nine_k wrote: post #52
CraigJPerry wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> people don't contribute to society equally That's a catastrophically flawed line of thinking. How can you quantify a person's contributions to society? You certainly can't do it by their ability to generate wealth as you seem to imply.

A bum usually contributes less to the society than, say, a food truck operator. Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution. But I posit that a seriously more precise measurements would involve grave violations of privacy.

>> usually

is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence!

>> Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution

No it’s not. If i generate my wealth by being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed more to society than a nurse who declared bankruptcy after the latest food and energy price increases?

It’s not because of the extremes of my example, it’s because wealth doesn’t accrue as a function of contribution to society.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#92

Post by jschveibinz »

cee_el123 wrote: post #83
tharne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

"no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap" I am one of those people who certainly missed the boat due to my own missteps, mistakes, lack of motivation But let's talk about those who don't/didn't have the favourable circumstances and opportunities I had/have Is not being able to afford / be-accepted-for a life changing college degree that person's fault 50% of the time ? is it their parents' fault ? is it th…

> if there is such a thing as lack of ability - that’s certainly a terrible reason…

I think this is a good point. Nobody should be disqualified, and there are in fact many programs available to help people achieve their personal best.

Community college is an excellent stepping stone, as are vocational training programs. These are available in some states at a very low cost.

There is self-affirmation in achieving completion of any project, and completion of a training program that enables one to work, to create, to contribute and to develop self-agency is a wonderful thing to do.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#93

Post by pydry »

endisneigh wrote: post #74
pydry wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has everything to do with tax - specifically prop 13 which DEtaxed land and led to California's ridiculously inefficient land use. Those property owners with $3 million houses will do everything in their power to prop their value up. That means inhibiting high density development. That means pretending a laundromat is "historic". With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as a…

you make absolutely no sense. the so-called power the NIMBYs have was given to them by the government. > With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha. and this is just wrong.

>the so-called power the NIMBYs have was given to them by the government.

Yeah, I mean the land owners got together and tried to declare a laundromat to be a historic building.

The problem here isnt so much with historic buildings OR the ability of people to club together to save them like you seem to think.

The problem is that a group of landowners abused that process to protect their net worth... which is high thanks to them owning a sliver of very valuable extremely untaxed land in the vicinity.

The more it is taxed the less valuable it is. If it's not valuable any more suddenly they wont give two shits about "historic laundromats".

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#94

Post by twblalock »

cee_el123 wrote: post #83
tharne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

"no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap" I am one of those people who certainly missed the boat due to my own missteps, mistakes, lack of motivation But let's talk about those who don't/didn't have the favourable circumstances and opportunities I had/have Is not being able to afford / be-accepted-for a life changing college degree that person's fault 50% of the time ? is it their parents' fault ? is it th…

Government is constantly giving people a boost. Need-based grants for college, for example. All sorts of welfare programs. Food stamps. Unemployment insurance. Housing vouchers. Social security and Medicare in retirement.

I’m not sure what kind of society you are arguing against, because it’s not the one we have.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#95

Post by cee_el123 »

whenUacct wrote: post #56
larsiusprime wrote: post #31

Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate , while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on hi…

I, like Rognlie, can make the lines say what I want to dissuade change to status quo. He’s still just one man. There’s no need to listen to him. I’d rather listen to the majority who are being fleeced by thought ending men like Rognlie. “Oh but don’t think to change things; see look here is other math!” Humans don’t exist in a vacuum of externalities; Rognlies advice makes it seem so. Fidgeting with the numbers doing…

I'm with you

although the language of that Brookings article is obscure ( possibly deliberately )

it seems like he's nitpicking rather than acknowledging something's deeply wrong.

plus it's strange the way he quotes himself in 3rd person in the article he himself wrote

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#96

Post by nine_k »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #91
nine_k wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bum usually contributes less to the society than, say, a food truck operator. Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution. But I posit that a seriously more precise measurements would involve grave violations of privacy.

>> usually is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! >> Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution No it’s not. If i generate my wealth by being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed more to society than a nurse who declared bankruptcy after the latest food and energy price increases? It’s not because of the extremes of my example, it’s because wealth doesn’t accrue as…

>> usually

> is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence!

You can safely replace it with "the majority".

> If i generate my wealth by being being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed

In no way. You have not generated any wealth, you've inherited it.

Andrew Carnegie generated wealth. "Colonel" Sanders generated wealth. Hell, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk generated wealth, as did any guy who runs a profitable pizza joint of a food truck. Interestingly, their contribution to the society, if not adequately measurable, is undeniably visible.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#97

Post by jschveibinz »

If some entity, be it the government or some other institution, is to take the responsibility of redistributing wealth by any means (taxation, welfare, rent control, etc.), does not that institution then bear the responsibility of determining what is equitable? Does this change over time?

And doesn’t that institution also bear the responsibility of the generational social and cultural impacts?

Does wealth redistribution reach stasis at a standard of living that is lower than is currently achievable? Does the golden goose eventually stop laying eggs?

Social engineering experiments can have many unforeseeable impacts - both good and bad. There is no guarantee that the ultimate results will be better than the starting conditions.

Whatever is done, it should be done slowly and under controlled conditions so that the impacts can be measured.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#98

Post by endisneigh »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #89
endisneigh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same way people get their information to decide now for anything democratically decided upon?

Therein lies the problem, because in order to coopt the democratic process, all you need to do is control the flow of information and the narrative. To wit: https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own...

I'm not sure what your point is - are you against democracy?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#99

Post by ForHackernews »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #57
ForHackernews wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

> Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was. Why? It is non-obvious to me that we should have a collective say in why the rich become rich.

Seems obvious to me: The only reason those people are even "rich" is because we've collectively decided not to eat them.

There are more of us than them. Property rights are agreed and enforced by society.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#100

Post by rgrieselhuber »

endisneigh wrote: post #98
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therein lies the problem, because in order to coopt the democratic process, all you need to do is control the flow of information and the narrative. To wit: https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own...

I'm not sure what your point is - are you against democracy?

I like the idea of it but recognize that it is easily subverted.

The Republic model (not the one described by Plato) is the best solution we’ve found to date to deal with these flaws.

Post reply on HN