4 ms·

I'd estimate the majority of active contributors to HN earn $150k+, putting them squarely in the upper percentiles of income-earners -- and definitely in the wo

I'd estimate the majority of active contributors to HN earn $150k+, putting them squarely in the upper percentiles of income-earners -- and definitely in the would-be-taxed bucket. Yet the sentiment expressed in the original comment is still the dominant mood here and elsewhere. The issue is not as clear-cut as "the poors want redistribution but the rich don't," Mark Benioff publicly threw his support behind the just-passed measure C, which would target a tax hike on companies like his. Irrespective of income, nobody in SF can stand the status quo. It's not a question of whether there's a willingness to pay -- I personally wonder if anyone even has a credible plan.

PeterisP 8y ago
$150-300k puts you squarely in the upper percentiles of income-earners, but it does not put you into the range of meaningful campaign donors that get the ear of electable politicians. From the perspective where we're talking about the influence of money on politics, $150-300k is still on the side where your opinion gets ignored because of your lack of money that you're going to spend on political influence.
- jessedhillon 8y ago
  If you think that only donors matter, or even that they matter most, I would wonder how you explain both local (SF) results and the current national electoral mood. Donor-emphasis has poor predictive power as a political theory, which was my point.
schaefer 8y ago
>>I'd estimate the majority of active contributors to HN earn $150-300k I can't think of any meaningful way to resolve this, but I'm guessing the majority earn less than $150k...