15 ms·

Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. At the very least these people pay some taxes instead of being a drain on societ

Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. At the very least these people pay some taxes instead of being a drain on society.

bobabooey02 9y ago
What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners. Granted, the equation shifts with small businesses compared to large ones, but the idea that business = improvement is a bit simplistic.
- news_to_me 9y ago
  > Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners Was this ever the case? I mean, look at the Victorian era and what amounted to forced labor camps in the coal mines of West Virginia – seems like profits are almost always sucked up to the top.
- arrty88 9y ago
  I'd rather have well off individuals entering this country with means to spend and support our middle class.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Tricle-down economics doesn't work. The only people who get empowered to get richer when rich people get rich, are the rich people themselves.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      It is not trickle down economics. It is optimizing for the highest amount of tax dollars. If you have 2 people, one which will contribute >30K a year in taxes, and another that will contribute 10k a year in taxes, that is free money on the table that we are losing out on, if we don't accept person 1.
- splintercell 9y ago
  > What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. This is not true. Anyone can claim that in a certain venture profits are not coupled to the contribution to society, as long as the person refuses to acknowledge or define "contribution to society". For instance, do you consider T Bone Pickens to have contributed to society via his profits? If no, then what about Warren Buffet?
- keithnz 9y ago
  Only the Sith deal in absolutes! I doubt profits have become decoupled from contribution to society as a rule.... there's going to be some statistical distribution of benefit. Understanding those stats will let you make good decisions on immigration. Though, I personally like Trumps idea. As a totally non related aside, New Zealand is a great place to come and innovate if the US isn't going to let you in :)
- stale2002 9y ago
  But at a very minimum, you can agree that if someone makes more money, then they will pay more in taxes? Why shouldn't the government optimize for letting people into the country that are going to give it a lot of tax dollars? We could then use those extra tax dollars to do things that society wants.
  - smt88 9y ago
    > if someone makes more money, then they will pay more in taxes? Absolutely not true for everyone. It depends heavily on how they make their money. Many very wealthy people are also able to abuse loopholes and decrease their tax bills. Do you remember when people thought Trump didn't want to release his tax returns because they showed he paid zero taxes? Yes, that's a real thing. Billionaires making millions in a given year are able to pay nothing, if they organize their finances correctly. Also, people have value to the economy outside of tax dollars. They also spend money, fill jobs that aren't filled by domestic workers, and produce babies (which wealthier people produce at a lower rate and which are necessary to fund things like Social Security).
splintercell 9y ago
You're right but your overall argument is wrong for different reasons. Earning a lot of money is a good proxy for contributing to society, except not everyone makes good money all the time. I'm an immigrant and if you were to judge me based on my first few years in America, then clearly you shouldn't let me in to America. Now, at a later stage in my life, I would qualify for "startup visa" but if I wasn't already living in America for past 10 years, then I might not wanna come here (might not even be eligible for this visa to be fare).
- soldierofhayley 9y ago
  I actually completely agree, which is why I am a big fan of IQ testing for immigrants.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    How disgusting.
    - soldierofhayley 9y ago
      Care to elaborate? As a patriot I think it is more disgusting to have no consideration for my fellow countrymen.
      - andrepd 9y ago
        How on earth does "IQ testing" and "consideration to fellow countrymen" even relate? I cannot fathom the connection.
        soldierofhayley 9y ago
        Who do you think pays for the unintelligent people in the welfare society the left envisions? Additionally I do find it rather amusing the left complains that the only reason they don’t win is because of stupid people, and then insists on bringing in the least intelligent immigrants possible, something doesn’t quite add up.
dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
What, exactly, do landlords contribute to society? Their assets ARE their value. Frankly, my landlord could die and the only people who would care would be the banks. All money means is that you convinced someone else to give you money at some point in life.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  If we look at the real estate visas (i.e. "invest 500k and get a visa") then what happens is that someone brings in 500k from outside and gives it to an american so that they get the real estate. That'a simple 500k upfront gain to the local economy.
- lcfcjs 9y ago
  They employ property manager companies, accountants, mortgage Brokers. They provide rental housing which is sometimes preferred living for some people. They renovate crappy properties. Property investors provide a lot to the economy. However, Trump's administration racist position on immigrants is completely unacceptable.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  >What, exactly, do landlords contribute to society? Efficient allocation of resources to property development. Although that's just a technical distinction, you can get rid of it by separating out the improved vs unimproved value of land (the former is much less problematic than the latter). >All money means is that you convinced someone else to give you money at some point in life. Presumably, the convincing is because giving you money is better than the alternatives.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The efficiency there is their contribution to the economy. I think often it is not much of a contribution to society. (compare a pleasant and profitable development to a development designed to exploit government incentives...the latter may well be more "efficient" in terms of economy)
  - dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
leggomylibro 9y ago
Not if the earner centralizes their profits and hangs on to the capital - then it just furthers our wealth inequality and harms poorer Americans at the expense of wealthy visa-holders. They can still drain our system, they just do it the Walmart way. Letting people in for a brick of hard cash seems much less likely to foster the sort of values that would result in visa holders not wanting to loot the country for a quick profit.
komali2 9y ago
I don't think this is true, because generally people who earn lots of money are in a better position to prevent the taking of that money, via having the capital to pool with other ultra-rich to lobby against taxes, pay accountants to find tax loopholes, etc.
gnaritas 9y ago
> Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. What a weird reality tunnel you inhabit.
- jshevek 9y ago
  This comment contributes nothing, but insults another for their worldview.
  - bjl 9y ago
    Why shouldn't we insult myopic, damaging worldviews like the OP's?
    - andrepd 9y ago
      You could, but you could also explain why they're myopic and damaging. I realize it's obvious to you but for the people in general the impression that it passes is that you don't have arguments and resort to name-calling. Seeing as you probably actually have good points to make, it's a shame that this is what transpires.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      You shouldn't do it on HN, because it's noise rather than substantive discourse.
    - dang 9y ago
      Because you all got trolled, which produces the most tedious kind of thread there is.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    Pointing out to someone that you don't share their worldview and in fact find it weird does contribute something, hopefully it pops their little bubble of thinking everyone agrees with them. And no, I didn't insult him, I said his reality tunnel is weird; that you can't tell the difference between insulting a person and commenting on their worldview says a lot about you. You can respect people without respecting their beliefs, you are not your beliefs, no ideas are beyond criticism.
dang 9y ago
We've banned this account for ideological trolling. Not what HN is for. Posting like this account has been doing will eventually get your main account banned too, so please don't create accounts to do this. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608078 and marked it off-topic.
- soldierofhayley 9y ago
  How do you establish what the main account is? IP address?
- Alfredo123 9y ago
  I am unable to see any "trolling" in the comment. The comment seems accurate.
  - dang 9y ago
    It was more than one comment. We judge 'trolling' by its effects. Inflammatory posts on divisive topics provoke flamewars, and that destroys the commons. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20troll%20effects https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... This doesn't mean you can't comment on divisive topics. It means that as the topic gets more divisive, comments need to become more thoughtful and more substantive, not less.
    - jshevek 9y ago
      When you decide that comments are "trolling" by their effects, rather than only their content, you give censorial power to people who respond poorly.

Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. At the very least these people pay some taxes instead of being a drain on society.

bobabooey02 9y ago

What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners. Granted, the equation shifts with small businesses compared to large ones, but the idea that business = improvement is a bit simplistic.

news_to_me 9y ago
> Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners Was this ever the case? I mean, look at the Victorian era and what amounted to forced labor camps in the coal mines of West Virginia – seems like profits are almost always sucked up to the top.
arrty88 9y ago
I'd rather have well off individuals entering this country with means to spend and support our middle class.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Tricle-down economics doesn't work. The only people who get empowered to get richer when rich people get rich, are the rich people themselves.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    It is not trickle down economics. It is optimizing for the highest amount of tax dollars. If you have 2 people, one which will contribute >30K a year in taxes, and another that will contribute 10k a year in taxes, that is free money on the table that we are losing out on, if we don't accept person 1.
splintercell 9y ago
> What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. This is not true. Anyone can claim that in a certain venture profits are not coupled to the contribution to society, as long as the person refuses to acknowledge or define "contribution to society". For instance, do you consider T Bone Pickens to have contributed to society via his profits? If no, then what about Warren Buffet?
keithnz 9y ago
Only the Sith deal in absolutes! I doubt profits have become decoupled from contribution to society as a rule.... there's going to be some statistical distribution of benefit. Understanding those stats will let you make good decisions on immigration. Though, I personally like Trumps idea. As a totally non related aside, New Zealand is a great place to come and innovate if the US isn't going to let you in :)
stale2002 9y ago
But at a very minimum, you can agree that if someone makes more money, then they will pay more in taxes? Why shouldn't the government optimize for letting people into the country that are going to give it a lot of tax dollars? We could then use those extra tax dollars to do things that society wants.
- smt88 9y ago
  > if someone makes more money, then they will pay more in taxes? Absolutely not true for everyone. It depends heavily on how they make their money. Many very wealthy people are also able to abuse loopholes and decrease their tax bills. Do you remember when people thought Trump didn't want to release his tax returns because they showed he paid zero taxes? Yes, that's a real thing. Billionaires making millions in a given year are able to pay nothing, if they organize their finances correctly. Also, people have value to the economy outside of tax dollars. They also spend money, fill jobs that aren't filled by domestic workers, and produce babies (which wealthier people produce at a lower rate and which are necessary to fund things like Social Security).

splintercell 9y ago

You're right but your overall argument is wrong for different reasons. Earning a lot of money is a good proxy for contributing to society, except not everyone makes good money all the time. I'm an immigrant and if you were to judge me based on my first few years in America, then clearly you shouldn't let me in to America. Now, at a later stage in my life, I would qualify for "startup visa" but if I wasn't already living in America for past 10 years, then I might not wanna come here (might not even be eligible for this visa to be fare).

soldierofhayley 9y ago
I actually completely agree, which is why I am a big fan of IQ testing for immigrants.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  How disgusting.
  - soldierofhayley 9y ago
    Care to elaborate? As a patriot I think it is more disgusting to have no consideration for my fellow countrymen.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      How on earth does "IQ testing" and "consideration to fellow countrymen" even relate? I cannot fathom the connection.
      - soldierofhayley 9y ago
        Who do you think pays for the unintelligent people in the welfare society the left envisions? Additionally I do find it rather amusing the left complains that the only reason they don’t win is because of stupid people, and then insists on bringing in the least intelligent immigrants possible, something doesn’t quite add up.

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago

What, exactly, do landlords contribute to society? Their assets ARE their value. Frankly, my landlord could die and the only people who would care would be the banks. All money means is that you convinced someone else to give you money at some point in life.

PeterisP 9y ago
If we look at the real estate visas (i.e. "invest 500k and get a visa") then what happens is that someone brings in 500k from outside and gives it to an american so that they get the real estate. That'a simple 500k upfront gain to the local economy.
lcfcjs 9y ago
They employ property manager companies, accountants, mortgage Brokers. They provide rental housing which is sometimes preferred living for some people. They renovate crappy properties. Property investors provide a lot to the economy. However, Trump's administration racist position on immigrants is completely unacceptable.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
>What, exactly, do landlords contribute to society? Efficient allocation of resources to property development. Although that's just a technical distinction, you can get rid of it by separating out the improved vs unimproved value of land (the former is much less problematic than the latter). >All money means is that you convinced someone else to give you money at some point in life. Presumably, the convincing is because giving you money is better than the alternatives.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The efficiency there is their contribution to the economy. I think often it is not much of a contribution to society. (compare a pleasant and profitable development to a development designed to exploit government incentives...the latter may well be more "efficient" in terms of economy)
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago

leggomylibro 9y ago

Not if the earner centralizes their profits and hangs on to the capital - then it just furthers our wealth inequality and harms poorer Americans at the expense of wealthy visa-holders. They can still drain our system, they just do it the Walmart way. Letting people in for a brick of hard cash seems much less likely to foster the sort of values that would result in visa holders not wanting to loot the country for a quick profit.

komali2 9y ago

I don't think this is true, because generally people who earn lots of money are in a better position to prevent the taking of that money, via having the capital to pool with other ultra-rich to lobby against taxes, pay accountants to find tax loopholes, etc.

gnaritas 9y ago

> Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. What a weird reality tunnel you inhabit.

jshevek 9y ago
This comment contributes nothing, but insults another for their worldview.
- bjl 9y ago
  Why shouldn't we insult myopic, damaging worldviews like the OP's?
  - andrepd 9y ago
    You could, but you could also explain why they're myopic and damaging. I realize it's obvious to you but for the people in general the impression that it passes is that you don't have arguments and resort to name-calling. Seeing as you probably actually have good points to make, it's a shame that this is what transpires.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    You shouldn't do it on HN, because it's noise rather than substantive discourse.
  - dang 9y ago
    Because you all got trolled, which produces the most tedious kind of thread there is.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Pointing out to someone that you don't share their worldview and in fact find it weird does contribute something, hopefully it pops their little bubble of thinking everyone agrees with them. And no, I didn't insult him, I said his reality tunnel is weird; that you can't tell the difference between insulting a person and commenting on their worldview says a lot about you. You can respect people without respecting their beliefs, you are not your beliefs, no ideas are beyond criticism.

dang 9y ago

We've banned this account for ideological trolling. Not what HN is for. Posting like this account has been doing will eventually get your main account banned too, so please don't create accounts to do this. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608078 and marked it off-topic.

soldierofhayley 9y ago
How do you establish what the main account is? IP address?
Alfredo123 9y ago
I am unable to see any "trolling" in the comment. The comment seems accurate.
- dang 9y ago
  It was more than one comment. We judge 'trolling' by its effects. Inflammatory posts on divisive topics provoke flamewars, and that destroys the commons. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20troll%20effects https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... This doesn't mean you can't comment on divisive topics. It means that as the topic gets more divisive, comments need to become more thoughtful and more substantive, not less.
  - jshevek 9y ago
    When you decide that comments are "trolling" by their effects, rather than only their content, you give censorial power to people who respond poorly.