9 ms·

I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the precariat: >The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously

I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the precariat: >The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality. 7 months after the election is actually quite long. Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: >Your home is regarded as a model home, your life as a model life. But all this splendor, and you along with it... it's just as though it were built upon a shifting quagmire. A moment may come, a word can be spoken, and both you and all this splendor will collapse. The rich cannot be ruined. I can. If I was to be fired from my job it would be a minor disaster, if I was to get an incurable disease I would slide down the income scale without a break. I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one.

ekianjo 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Why don't you? There's plenty of choice out there.
- _acme 9y ago
  Language and nationality would be two significant obstacles.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Countries can control who moves into them, you know.
- jhbadger 9y ago
  Actually, quite a lot does prevent Americans from moving -- namely the work permits and job offers that are generally required -- just as America limits immigration, so do other countries. I actually have lived and worked in other countries myself, but my employers had to write justifications as to why they were hiring me rather than one of their countrymen.
taneq 9y ago
That doesn't mean you're not rich, that just means that you're spending your income on immediate comfort and flashy toys rather than security. If you lived further within your means and invested the difference wisely, within a year or two you would have far more security than the $30k household will ever have.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Medical issues (maybe legal too) seem to be the game changer. Millions can go just like that, assuming you want the best available (and who doesn't for loved ones?)
  - taneq 9y ago
    "The best available" goes far beyond the point of diminishing returns. If you're willing to settle for merely 'top tier', you'd spend a small fraction of the amount for essentially the same level of care. And that's even in a place with medical costs as insane as the U.S. Anyway, there's no such thing as perfectly impervious to risk - even ultra-wealthy families sometimes topple. That doesn't change the fact that with careful management, a $300k/year income can rapidly feather a rather nice, rather secure nest. $30k/year cannot.
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      I'd like to think that there are diminishing returns, but in my experience, the biggest complaint about doctors (and from doctors) is the lack of time they get to spend on a patient. It would stand to reason that a doctor that can spend an hour talking to you, researching your condition and history, collaborate with colleagues across disciplines is going to have a much greater impact than one who sees you for 5 minutes. And it costs quite a lot to get that level of care. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end-medical-care.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end...
      - kbutler 9y ago
        > in my experience, the biggest complaint about doctors (and from doctors) is the lack of time they get to spend on a patient. If you talk to someone with significant health issues, it rapidly becomes, "The doctors don't have the answer". Nobody wants to spend longer with the doctor - they want healthy, productive life outside the doctor's office.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
Everyone is looking for security. Security from physical violence, security from medical issues bankrupting them, security for their children to be successful (of which living in a high income high expense neighborhood is apparently a huge factor).
parennoob 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. This crucial point of yours seems to have been missed by the author of the article. I wonder if that has something to do with them being from the UK, which has nationalized healthcare and some sort of a welfare state.
bicubic 9y ago
Yeah. There's a strata of poor to somewhat rich, but they're all in the same bucket of the grander wealth scale: workers. They must keep doing work in order to maintain their lifestyle, the only thing their relative income difference dictates is the quality of that lifestyle and how long they can maintain it after losing income. After that comes 'i don't need to work again' wealthy. Then 'fuck you' wealthy. Then 'I can ignore the law' wealthy. Then 'I can buy the law' wealthy. The 99% sits on the lowest rung on the meaningful wealth scale.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  I find interesting your wealthy classification. What is the difference between the first two? I can't figure it out.
  - bicubic 9y ago
    It's the difference between someone who can maintain a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life if they don't go overboard, and someone who has enough money to start pursuing other ventures at cost. This comes with a whole lot of changes like losing most of your 'poor people' friend circle and rubbing shoulders with impactful people. As the creator of Minecraft put it: >Once I realized I had fuck-you money and didn't care about my public image any more because it didn't affect my day to day life in any way
- averagewall 9y ago
  Everything you said can be applied either to the 1% in America or the Americans in the world. Both are about in the top 1% of richness and both have those privileges among their respective 99%s.
  - John23832 9y ago
    The average American can't change the law in an arbitrary part of the world. Lloyd Blankfein can.
miguelrochefort 9y ago
Can't you afford health insurance?
vanderZwan 9y ago
You're pulling that quote out of context there, the previous paragraph grounds the statement into something entirely different than attacking the precariat: > Beneath a veneer of classlessness, the American class reproduction machine operates with ruthless efficiency. In particular, the upper middle class is solidifying. This favored fifth at the top of the income distribution, with an average annual household income of $200,000, has been separating from the 80 percent below. Collectively, this top fifth has seen a $4 trillion-plus increase in pretax income since 1979, compared to just over $3 trillion for everyone else. Some of those gains went to the top 1 percent. But most went to the 19 percent just beneath them. Nothing about what you state goes against the spirit of the article, which between the lines mainly seems to be about wealth redistribution. Also, while I agree with all of your points, putting yourself in the same boat as the precariat, the most vulnerable underbelly of modern society, is a bit crass.
VMG 9y ago
> That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. Socialism is worse for your health and well-being than the "evil rich" can ever be.
- onion2k 9y ago
  Socialism is worse for your health and well-being than the "evil rich" can ever be. I live in the UK where we have a national health service paid for by direct taxation. If I get ill I will be taken care of, by a government provided service, at no cost to me. If I don't get ill then I'll end up with a bit less money, but all the people around me who do get ill will be cared for free of any direct charge whether they're rich or poor. I literally cannot understand how you can think that's worse than any alternative for healthcare provision.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Because for fifty-ish years the narrative in the US has been Communism is the enemy, and Socialism is the path to Communism, therefore Socialism is the enemy too. We're going to have to wait until the baby boomers die off to have any reasonable chance of getting a proper safety net in place.
    - fivestar 9y ago
      I don't think the Boomers are the major impediment there--for decades it's been all about one generation and they have done nothing but suck the life out of everyone else while at the same time pulling up all the ladders. Why do you think high taxes and "safety nets" are the way to go? Why can't we just be free? How many times must collectivism be exposed for the fraud that it is before we stop re-visiting that waste of time?
      - FussyZeus 9y ago
        The problem is when we were totally and completely free within a few decades the entire means of production was owned by a few insanely large companies, and due to the relative laxness of their regulations, they operated with near total impunity. It was only after the uprising of labor and organization into unions that the real "golden age" of America arrived for someone besides the ultra-rich. Since then the media narratives and corporate propaganda have steadily demonized all collective bargaining entities, brought forth the scourge of the "gig economy" where businesses get to have multitudes of low-skill workers competing for a small fixed pool of work, all of whom jump at the chance to earn $20 because they'll starve otherwise, and carry none of the expenses of real employees (those annoyances like "a living wage" and "healthcare" and "retirement savings." And that's just the actual jobs, with automation eating more jobs ever faster, fewer workers are now producing more than ever meaning there are fewer salaries doled out and even less money making it away from the wealthy. Communism did fail, but I think it arrived too early. I really think there's some merit to the idea that once the machines have eaten all the jobs, and once we're free to our own time, that there's no reason to keep up the illusion that we must remain employed for seemingly little reason other than "that's the way it's always been done."
golergka 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. What's stopping you from saving up same amount of money? > if I was to get an incurable disease I would slide down the income scale without a break. ...as would your utility to the society. It's understandable, from basic moral instinct, that society would continue to provide you with basic food and shelter, would such a thing happen. But why on Earth would I, for example, be compelled to continue pay you your former salary (since we're on HN, I'd assume you're on senior software engineer level) after you can no longer provide the relevant service?
- bicubic 9y ago
  > What's stopping you from saving up same amount of money? The fact that it would put him at a significant relative quality of life disadvantage compared to his peers. A widespread 80% tax would not.
  - Neliquat 9y ago
    Not if is saving is in line with his goals, which may differ from others.
  - fivestar 9y ago
    All that an 80% tax would do is suck the wealth away to the 1% even faster. No one is minding the store--the money the federal government takes now at 25-33% is mostly wasted on nonsense that benefits the war machine, the healthcare machinery (think: rent seekers) and all manner of pork projects. I can't see forfeiting even more to them, I just wouldn't bother to work at all. Enough is enough when it comes to this socialist utopia dream--it doesn't exist, it has never existed, it will never exist.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Hi, I went to a doctor this morning and recieved a prescription for which I will pay nothing. Apparently I don't exist?
jdietrich 9y ago
On $300k a year, either you're not really precarious or you're making utterly reckless financial decisions. You can comfortably afford the best available health insurance. You can comfortably afford very good life insurance and income protection insurance. You can comfortably afford to save a substantial amount for emergencies and retirement. You're in a completely different situation from someone on $30k a year, who is undoubtedly living paycheck-to-paycheck. For you, a broken boiler or a major engine repair is a near-trivial expense. For someone on $30k, that same expense might put them into debt for months or years. If the mailman brings you an unexpected utility bill or parking ticket, you're not faced with the choice of skipping meals or going into debt.
- korrachs 9y ago
  And that's how solidarity dies. Are we going to start playing the game of "you're not oppressed enough"? Why not start with the $30k a year household: Hot water? What a luxury! Half the world can't afford drinking water. Car engine? They can use a bicycle like they do in India. Utility bills? Just bring in some chickens into your home to warm it up. With enough will and prudent planning you can make a dollar a day stretch much further than you could imagine. Just like you are suggesting I spend my life figuring out ways to live better in a system broken by design. In a sane country I wouldn't have to worry about insurance and the people making a tenth less than me wouldn't worry about cars, boilers or bills, because there would be public options for all of those things.
  - ice109 9y ago
    >And that's how solidarity dies. you've gotta be one of the most of out touch people i've ever seen express their out of touch opinions. what shows of solidarity have you made? have you ever even been to the poor part of town? if you live in nyc message me and i'll gladly take you on a tour where you can stand with your brethren. >With enough will and prudent planning you can make a dollar a day stretch much further than you could imagine. go ahead: plan it out for me since my imagination is so poor.
    - 9y ago
hal9000xp 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes That's ridiculous. No government services costs that much. No insurance for any event costs that much. If you live in richest country in the world and citizens pay 30% taxes and government can't provide free education and health care then it's something wrong with the government itself and artificially inflated prices on education and healthcare. Instead of raising taxes, you need pop healthcare and education bubble first.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Or you use the taxes to transfer wealth from the richest to the poorest, for example by paying everyone a basic income.
- _acme 9y ago
  Denmark and Sweden's top marginal tax rate is around 60%, which doesn't include value added taxes of about 10%.
  - hal9000xp 9y ago
    And that's why I left Sweden to the Netherlands because the Netherlands offers huge tax discount - 30% rulling. In other words, Sweden lost me as a software developer. And it looks like it's not only me how doesn't like high taxes in Sweden: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-founders-blast-swedens-business-environment-in-open-letter-1460479684 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-founders-blast-swedens-...
- aries1980 9y ago
  In Hungary you pay 54% of it + 27% VAT.
fivestar 9y ago
You're a socialist but you make $300K a year? Please have a seat, thanks. You're a nut is what you are.
- sctb 9y ago
  You've been violating the guidelines by posting a lot of uncivil, unsubstantive comments—especially generic ideological ones. Would you please stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - fivestar 9y ago
    Oh dear me!
ekianjo 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. Oh and by the way, countries like the Soviet Union have never been known for providing good healthcare solutions or even producing remotely interesting new drugs for their population. Are you sure you really want socialism for health care? Seems like the facts don't really align with your idealized version of socialism.
- taifff 9y ago
  Saying Soviet Union is socialism is like saying China's government really cares about communism.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Hey so where is the real socialism yet? you don't seem to realize that all socialism leads to a construct like Soviet Russia. Everything was nationalized, which is basically what Socialism advocated all along. The effects are well known, let's not pretend there was ever a "no true scotman" effect for socialism in Russia.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Socialism != soviet union. The world is full of countries with more equally distributed healthcare systems than the US with better public/private balance. The one that gets brought up most often here is the UK NHS, but there are plenty of others. (Ironically, even if you limit yourself to actual communism, Cuba has quite an effective healthcare system. It just relies on not having freedom of movement so doctors can't move to better paid countries)
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > The world is full of countries with more equally distributed healthcare systems than the US with better public/private balance. The one that gets brought up most often here is the UK NHS, but there are plenty of others. How many countries with socialist health care systems then produce new drugs for patients? I can tell you, it's about none. Most of the new drugs worldwide come from the US market. There's no way going around that fact.
naturalgradient 9y ago
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of your spending vs the 30k household here. After all, if you always adjust your spending to your income, you will never be rich in any 'cannot be ruined' sense. Consequently, it would be unfair to compare situations to the 30k family and conclude you are in the same boat.
narrator 9y ago
You would pay 80% to have your healthcare paid for, but we already spend double, as a percentage of GDP, vs. any other country for health care and we have worse outcomes by many measures. More government spending will just make the problem worse. Something, anything, besides spending more money has to be done to solve the health care crisis but political thinking is so calcified that we can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve spending more money.
- harryh 9y ago
  FWIW there are some studies that try to break apart health outcomes caused by health care vs those cased by lifestyle. Most of these seem to indicate that we are actually getting something for our extra money in the US. Cancer recovery rates, for example, are very good in the US compared to elsewhere. Many of our poor health outcomes seem to be due to lifestyle issues (obesity, drugs, lack of exercise, etc) not our actual health care system. Not disagreeing with your comment as I think you are mostly right. Just thought you might find this interesting.
  - thatwebdude 9y ago
    It would also be interesting to see where income lies in those lifestyle issues as well before and during the downturn.
jlebrech 9y ago
WE NEED SOCIALISM for the following. Transportation Post Healthcare Emergency Services Basic Welfare For everything else there's capitalism.
- majewsky 9y ago
  I would add utilities to that list, at least to a certain extent. It's impractical to have multiple electricity/water/sewage grids in the same city.
  - jlebrech 9y ago
    but the consumption of utilities varies great from household to household and it would be abused. but a capped subsidized amount would make sense.
  - jlebrech 9y ago
    yes, the grids should be the same company, but who bills you varies.
  - thatwebdude 9y ago
    Competition? Although I've never had the option to choose these utilities in the cities I've lived in. I haven't lived in a ton of cities, but enough to wonder.
- carlob 9y ago
  Education
  - jlebrech 9y ago
    yes that's another one.
samirillian 9y ago
Dividing the world into the 1% who "own" and the 99% who must sell their labor is useful on one level, but obscurantist on another. The question is not one of abstractions, but of political realities. What exactly has this so-called "solidarity of the precariat" wrought? The author's point is precisely that the upper-middle class actively work against the interests of the 80%. Do you disagree that 30k/yr private schools, Ivy League legacies, and these suburban enclaves are also "an attack on the solidarity of the precariat"? Only that the 80% only have their words and their votes, whereas the 20% have real political power?
Consultant32452 9y ago
>Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: You and the $30k household are both in the global 1%. Over 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. Both of you have social safety nets for food, housing, and healthcare. You live better lives than virtually everyone in the history of the planet has ever lived. That's what makes you the same. >That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. Socialism has tended to result in the opposite outcome. If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. What does this even mean? Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. >If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time. Yep, socialism is the cause of all their problems. In no way is this situation caused by the huge drop in oil prices, something almost entirely outside their control. And Capitalism has never experienced a collapse like theirs...
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Venezuela seems to be more straightforward corruption and incompetence, the sort of thing that can ruin any political system left or right.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      This is precisely why socialism is a bad idea. Bad people will always get elected eventually. The solution to this problem is not to hand more control of the nation's capital to a nice pretty centralized target for evil/imcompetent people.
adgasf 9y ago
"I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. " It sounds like you should buy insurance.
kbutler 9y ago
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. No, you wouldn't. If you lived on 20% of your income ($60,000 - still double that $30k household that you claim is the same), you could retire in 5.5 working years and have that nest egg sustain you forever - no welfare state needed. If you drop it down to the $30,000, saving 90% of your income, you could retire in 3 years. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim... Your lifestyle is preventing you from doing that, and your lifestyle and the fact that you can choose whether or not to live the $30k lifestyle is how you are not the same as that $30k household on the other end of town. > That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. You're still only a socialist as long as you're spending other people's money.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ekianjo 9y ago

_acme 9y ago
Language and nationality would be two significant obstacles.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Nothing prevents you from moving in a more socialist country. Countries can control who moves into them, you know.
jhbadger 9y ago
Actually, quite a lot does prevent Americans from moving -- namely the work permits and job offers that are generally required -- just as America limits immigration, so do other countries. I actually have lived and worked in other countries myself, but my employers had to write justifications as to why they were hiring me rather than one of their countrymen.

taneq 9y ago

That doesn't mean you're not rich, that just means that you're spending your income on immediate comfort and flashy toys rather than security. If you lived further within your means and invested the difference wisely, within a year or two you would have far more security than the $30k household will ever have.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
Medical issues (maybe legal too) seem to be the game changer. Millions can go just like that, assuming you want the best available (and who doesn't for loved ones?)
- taneq 9y ago
  "The best available" goes far beyond the point of diminishing returns. If you're willing to settle for merely 'top tier', you'd spend a small fraction of the amount for essentially the same level of care. And that's even in a place with medical costs as insane as the U.S. Anyway, there's no such thing as perfectly impervious to risk - even ultra-wealthy families sometimes topple. That doesn't change the fact that with careful management, a $300k/year income can rapidly feather a rather nice, rather secure nest. $30k/year cannot.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    I'd like to think that there are diminishing returns, but in my experience, the biggest complaint about doctors (and from doctors) is the lack of time they get to spend on a patient. It would stand to reason that a doctor that can spend an hour talking to you, researching your condition and history, collaborate with colleagues across disciplines is going to have a much greater impact than one who sees you for 5 minutes. And it costs quite a lot to get that level of care. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end-medical-care.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end...
    - kbutler 9y ago
      > in my experience, the biggest complaint about doctors (and from doctors) is the lack of time they get to spend on a patient. If you talk to someone with significant health issues, it rapidly becomes, "The doctors don't have the answer". Nobody wants to spend longer with the doctor - they want healthy, productive life outside the doctor's office.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

Everyone is looking for security. Security from physical violence, security from medical issues bankrupting them, security for their children to be successful (of which living in a high income high expense neighborhood is apparently a huge factor).

parennoob 9y ago

> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. This crucial point of yours seems to have been missed by the author of the article. I wonder if that has something to do with them being from the UK, which has nationalized healthcare and some sort of a welfare state.

bicubic 9y ago

Yeah. There's a strata of poor to somewhat rich, but they're all in the same bucket of the grander wealth scale: workers. They must keep doing work in order to maintain their lifestyle, the only thing their relative income difference dictates is the quality of that lifestyle and how long they can maintain it after losing income. After that comes 'i don't need to work again' wealthy. Then 'fuck you' wealthy. Then 'I can ignore the law' wealthy. Then 'I can buy the law' wealthy. The 99% sits on the lowest rung on the meaningful wealth scale.

RobertoG 9y ago
I find interesting your wealthy classification. What is the difference between the first two? I can't figure it out.
- bicubic 9y ago
  It's the difference between someone who can maintain a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life if they don't go overboard, and someone who has enough money to start pursuing other ventures at cost. This comes with a whole lot of changes like losing most of your 'poor people' friend circle and rubbing shoulders with impactful people. As the creator of Minecraft put it: >Once I realized I had fuck-you money and didn't care about my public image any more because it didn't affect my day to day life in any way
averagewall 9y ago
Everything you said can be applied either to the 1% in America or the Americans in the world. Both are about in the top 1% of richness and both have those privileges among their respective 99%s.
- John23832 9y ago
  The average American can't change the law in an arbitrary part of the world. Lloyd Blankfein can.

miguelrochefort 9y ago

Can't you afford health insurance?

vanderZwan 9y ago

You're pulling that quote out of context there, the previous paragraph grounds the statement into something entirely different than attacking the precariat: > Beneath a veneer of classlessness, the American class reproduction machine operates with ruthless efficiency. In particular, the upper middle class is solidifying. This favored fifth at the top of the income distribution, with an average annual household income of $200,000, has been separating from the 80 percent below. Collectively, this top fifth has seen a $4 trillion-plus increase in pretax income since 1979, compared to just over $3 trillion for everyone else. Some of those gains went to the top 1 percent. But most went to the 19 percent just beneath them. Nothing about what you state goes against the spirit of the article, which between the lines mainly seems to be about wealth redistribution. Also, while I agree with all of your points, putting yourself in the same boat as the precariat, the most vulnerable underbelly of modern society, is a bit crass.

VMG 9y ago

> That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. Socialism is worse for your health and well-being than the "evil rich" can ever be.

onion2k 9y ago
Socialism is worse for your health and well-being than the "evil rich" can ever be. I live in the UK where we have a national health service paid for by direct taxation. If I get ill I will be taken care of, by a government provided service, at no cost to me. If I don't get ill then I'll end up with a bit less money, but all the people around me who do get ill will be cared for free of any direct charge whether they're rich or poor. I literally cannot understand how you can think that's worse than any alternative for healthcare provision.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Because for fifty-ish years the narrative in the US has been Communism is the enemy, and Socialism is the path to Communism, therefore Socialism is the enemy too. We're going to have to wait until the baby boomers die off to have any reasonable chance of getting a proper safety net in place.
  - fivestar 9y ago
    I don't think the Boomers are the major impediment there--for decades it's been all about one generation and they have done nothing but suck the life out of everyone else while at the same time pulling up all the ladders. Why do you think high taxes and "safety nets" are the way to go? Why can't we just be free? How many times must collectivism be exposed for the fraud that it is before we stop re-visiting that waste of time?
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      The problem is when we were totally and completely free within a few decades the entire means of production was owned by a few insanely large companies, and due to the relative laxness of their regulations, they operated with near total impunity. It was only after the uprising of labor and organization into unions that the real "golden age" of America arrived for someone besides the ultra-rich. Since then the media narratives and corporate propaganda have steadily demonized all collective bargaining entities, brought forth the scourge of the "gig economy" where businesses get to have multitudes of low-skill workers competing for a small fixed pool of work, all of whom jump at the chance to earn $20 because they'll starve otherwise, and carry none of the expenses of real employees (those annoyances like "a living wage" and "healthcare" and "retirement savings." And that's just the actual jobs, with automation eating more jobs ever faster, fewer workers are now producing more than ever meaning there are fewer salaries doled out and even less money making it away from the wealthy. Communism did fail, but I think it arrived too early. I really think there's some merit to the idea that once the machines have eaten all the jobs, and once we're free to our own time, that there's no reason to keep up the illusion that we must remain employed for seemingly little reason other than "that's the way it's always been done."

golergka 9y ago

> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. What's stopping you from saving up same amount of money? > if I was to get an incurable disease I would slide down the income scale without a break. ...as would your utility to the society. It's understandable, from basic moral instinct, that society would continue to provide you with basic food and shelter, would such a thing happen. But why on Earth would I, for example, be compelled to continue pay you your former salary (since we're on HN, I'd assume you're on senior software engineer level) after you can no longer provide the relevant service?

bicubic 9y ago
> What's stopping you from saving up same amount of money? The fact that it would put him at a significant relative quality of life disadvantage compared to his peers. A widespread 80% tax would not.
- Neliquat 9y ago
  Not if is saving is in line with his goals, which may differ from others.
- fivestar 9y ago
  All that an 80% tax would do is suck the wealth away to the 1% even faster. No one is minding the store--the money the federal government takes now at 25-33% is mostly wasted on nonsense that benefits the war machine, the healthcare machinery (think: rent seekers) and all manner of pork projects. I can't see forfeiting even more to them, I just wouldn't bother to work at all. Enough is enough when it comes to this socialist utopia dream--it doesn't exist, it has never existed, it will never exist.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Hi, I went to a doctor this morning and recieved a prescription for which I will pay nothing. Apparently I don't exist?

jdietrich 9y ago

On $300k a year, either you're not really precarious or you're making utterly reckless financial decisions. You can comfortably afford the best available health insurance. You can comfortably afford very good life insurance and income protection insurance. You can comfortably afford to save a substantial amount for emergencies and retirement. You're in a completely different situation from someone on $30k a year, who is undoubtedly living paycheck-to-paycheck. For you, a broken boiler or a major engine repair is a near-trivial expense. For someone on $30k, that same expense might put them into debt for months or years. If the mailman brings you an unexpected utility bill or parking ticket, you're not faced with the choice of skipping meals or going into debt.

korrachs 9y ago
And that's how solidarity dies. Are we going to start playing the game of "you're not oppressed enough"? Why not start with the $30k a year household: Hot water? What a luxury! Half the world can't afford drinking water. Car engine? They can use a bicycle like they do in India. Utility bills? Just bring in some chickens into your home to warm it up. With enough will and prudent planning you can make a dollar a day stretch much further than you could imagine. Just like you are suggesting I spend my life figuring out ways to live better in a system broken by design. In a sane country I wouldn't have to worry about insurance and the people making a tenth less than me wouldn't worry about cars, boilers or bills, because there would be public options for all of those things.
- ice109 9y ago
  >And that's how solidarity dies. you've gotta be one of the most of out touch people i've ever seen express their out of touch opinions. what shows of solidarity have you made? have you ever even been to the poor part of town? if you live in nyc message me and i'll gladly take you on a tour where you can stand with your brethren. >With enough will and prudent planning you can make a dollar a day stretch much further than you could imagine. go ahead: plan it out for me since my imagination is so poor.
  - 9y ago

hal9000xp 9y ago

> I would happily pay 80% taxes That's ridiculous. No government services costs that much. No insurance for any event costs that much. If you live in richest country in the world and citizens pay 30% taxes and government can't provide free education and health care then it's something wrong with the government itself and artificially inflated prices on education and healthcare. Instead of raising taxes, you need pop healthcare and education bubble first.

adrianN 9y ago
Or you use the taxes to transfer wealth from the richest to the poorest, for example by paying everyone a basic income.
_acme 9y ago
Denmark and Sweden's top marginal tax rate is around 60%, which doesn't include value added taxes of about 10%.
- hal9000xp 9y ago
  And that's why I left Sweden to the Netherlands because the Netherlands offers huge tax discount - 30% rulling. In other words, Sweden lost me as a software developer. And it looks like it's not only me how doesn't like high taxes in Sweden: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-founders-blast-swedens-business-environment-in-open-letter-1460479684 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-founders-blast-swedens-...
aries1980 9y ago
In Hungary you pay 54% of it + 27% VAT.

fivestar 9y ago

You're a socialist but you make $300K a year? Please have a seat, thanks. You're a nut is what you are.

sctb 9y ago
You've been violating the guidelines by posting a lot of uncivil, unsubstantive comments—especially generic ideological ones. Would you please stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fivestar 9y ago
  Oh dear me!

ekianjo 9y ago

> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. Oh and by the way, countries like the Soviet Union have never been known for providing good healthcare solutions or even producing remotely interesting new drugs for their population. Are you sure you really want socialism for health care? Seems like the facts don't really align with your idealized version of socialism.

taifff 9y ago
Saying Soviet Union is socialism is like saying China's government really cares about communism.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Hey so where is the real socialism yet? you don't seem to realize that all socialism leads to a construct like Soviet Russia. Everything was nationalized, which is basically what Socialism advocated all along. The effects are well known, let's not pretend there was ever a "no true scotman" effect for socialism in Russia.
pjc50 9y ago
Socialism != soviet union. The world is full of countries with more equally distributed healthcare systems than the US with better public/private balance. The one that gets brought up most often here is the UK NHS, but there are plenty of others. (Ironically, even if you limit yourself to actual communism, Cuba has quite an effective healthcare system. It just relies on not having freedom of movement so doctors can't move to better paid countries)
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > The world is full of countries with more equally distributed healthcare systems than the US with better public/private balance. The one that gets brought up most often here is the UK NHS, but there are plenty of others. How many countries with socialist health care systems then produce new drugs for patients? I can tell you, it's about none. Most of the new drugs worldwide come from the US market. There's no way going around that fact.

naturalgradient 9y ago

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of your spending vs the 30k household here. After all, if you always adjust your spending to your income, you will never be rich in any 'cannot be ruined' sense. Consequently, it would be unfair to compare situations to the 30k family and conclude you are in the same boat.

narrator 9y ago

You would pay 80% to have your healthcare paid for, but we already spend double, as a percentage of GDP, vs. any other country for health care and we have worse outcomes by many measures. More government spending will just make the problem worse. Something, anything, besides spending more money has to be done to solve the health care crisis but political thinking is so calcified that we can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve spending more money.

harryh 9y ago
FWIW there are some studies that try to break apart health outcomes caused by health care vs those cased by lifestyle. Most of these seem to indicate that we are actually getting something for our extra money in the US. Cancer recovery rates, for example, are very good in the US compared to elsewhere. Many of our poor health outcomes seem to be due to lifestyle issues (obesity, drugs, lack of exercise, etc) not our actual health care system. Not disagreeing with your comment as I think you are mostly right. Just thought you might find this interesting.
- thatwebdude 9y ago
  It would also be interesting to see where income lies in those lifestyle issues as well before and during the downturn.

jlebrech 9y ago

WE NEED SOCIALISM for the following. Transportation Post Healthcare Emergency Services Basic Welfare For everything else there's capitalism.

majewsky 9y ago
I would add utilities to that list, at least to a certain extent. It's impractical to have multiple electricity/water/sewage grids in the same city.
- jlebrech 9y ago
  but the consumption of utilities varies great from household to household and it would be abused. but a capped subsidized amount would make sense.
- jlebrech 9y ago
  yes, the grids should be the same company, but who bills you varies.
- thatwebdude 9y ago
  Competition? Although I've never had the option to choose these utilities in the cities I've lived in. I haven't lived in a ton of cities, but enough to wonder.
carlob 9y ago
Education
- jlebrech 9y ago
  yes that's another one.

samirillian 9y ago

Dividing the world into the 1% who "own" and the 99% who must sell their labor is useful on one level, but obscurantist on another. The question is not one of abstractions, but of political realities. What exactly has this so-called "solidarity of the precariat" wrought? The author's point is precisely that the upper-middle class actively work against the interests of the 80%. Do you disagree that 30k/yr private schools, Ivy League legacies, and these suburban enclaves are also "an attack on the solidarity of the precariat"? Only that the 80% only have their words and their votes, whereas the 20% have real political power?

Consultant32452 9y ago

>Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: You and the $30k household are both in the global 1%. Over 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. Both of you have social safety nets for food, housing, and healthcare. You live better lives than virtually everyone in the history of the planet has ever lived. That's what makes you the same. >That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. Socialism has tended to result in the opposite outcome. If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. What does this even mean? Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. >If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time. Yep, socialism is the cause of all their problems. In no way is this situation caused by the huge drop in oil prices, something almost entirely outside their control. And Capitalism has never experienced a collapse like theirs...
- pjc50 9y ago
  Venezuela seems to be more straightforward corruption and incompetence, the sort of thing that can ruin any political system left or right.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    This is precisely why socialism is a bad idea. Bad people will always get elected eventually. The solution to this problem is not to hand more control of the nation's capital to a nice pretty centralized target for evil/imcompetent people.

adgasf 9y ago

"I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. " It sounds like you should buy insurance.

kbutler 9y ago

> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. No, you wouldn't. If you lived on 20% of your income ($60,000 - still double that $30k household that you claim is the same), you could retire in 5.5 working years and have that nest egg sustain you forever - no welfare state needed. If you drop it down to the $30,000, saving 90% of your income, you could retire in 3 years. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim... Your lifestyle is preventing you from doing that, and your lifestyle and the fact that you can choose whether or not to live the $30k lifestyle is how you are not the same as that $30k household on the other end of town. > That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. You're still only a socialist as long as you're spending other people's money.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]