5 ms·

Yacht builders employ lots of people to build large yachts, what's wrong with being a yacht builder? Why $10 million? What about in countries outside of the Un

by r0fl 8y ago

Yacht builders employ lots of people to build large yachts, what's wrong with being a yacht builder? Why $10 million? What about in countries outside of the United States? What if a wealthy person has a single asset that is worth more than $10 million and has one kid? ex: a $50 million commercial building. Would you force a sale of the asset and then strip away $40 million away? What about lottery winners who win over $10 million? Should lotteries be capped at $10 million?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Should lotteries be No.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> ex: a $50 million commercial building. Would you force a sale of the asset and then strip away $40 million away Plenty of householders or businesses have to sell an asset to settle some debt or tax bill, why not estate taxes? Of course we might have to bring back capital controls for it to be functional.
mc32 8y ago
Exactly. The kind of millionaire you don’t want is thd one who hides money under the mattress. Those who invest or conspicuously splurge are a boon to the economy and to workers.
- greeneggs 8y ago
  This is wrong economically. Conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources. If a wealthy person and all her descendants save their money forever, then there's no harm to the economy. The money is just numbers in a computer, nothing concrete. (Politically, it could be dangerous, since there is always the threat that they could spend it.) If she spends it digging holes, on the other hand, then that's wasting real resources. It employs people, yes, but in a pointless task. Their labor could have been better deployed. There's obviously a continuum, but $100 million yachts are probably closer to the digging-holes side of the continuum. (But maybe not. For example, spending $10 million on a painting for that yacht has very little real effect, since aside from the purchase transfer overhead, it is mostly moving numbers from one bank account to another.)
  - covercash 8y ago
    I imagine some of the r&d (tech, materials, manufacturing processes) leads to improvements in areas that less wealthy people benefit from.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    And how do you know what the correct usage of resources is? This is why communism _always_ fails. Every attempt at a top-down control of the entire economy will lead to failure. The economy is too complicated and chaotic for that to ever work.
    - jordanbeiber 8y ago
      I see this a lot — the jump straight to ”communism”, and it’s tiresome. I believe in this day and age we know a lot of things we didnt’t at the start of industrialization. As soon as someone starts talking about keeping mindful about consumption they somehow end up being supportive of full blown communism. Looking at the state of our earth you could easily say that capitalism doesn’t work, at all. It’s more nuanced than that though.
      - Pristina 8y ago
        > capitalism doesn’t work, at all. i look at north korea then i look at south korea. if capitalism doesn't work, at all, then communism must negatively work.
        jordanbeiber 8y ago
        Questioning the end result of capitalism is obviously touchy for many... My comment was simply that you can question the state of capitalism in the world today without suggesting that communism should take it’s place. P.s Also, have a talk to the insects, polar bears, cheetahs (only 7000 of them beauties left), etc. Out of whack and out of balance.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"What about lottery winners who win over $10 million? Should lotteries be capped at $10 million? " Actually I think so. I would prefer if more people won a modest amount vs. one person winning tens of millions with a large jackpot.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It would definitely make more people realize how much of a money waste lotteries are. If you'd expect to win $1000 every year, you'd quickly realize you spend more on tickets than you get back.
  - Pristina 8y ago
    I can spend $1 on a ticket and feel an insane whirlwind of emotion imagining myself winning $1 billion, or i can spend $1 on a candy bar and feel some pleasure eating it. If buying a lottery ticket is a waste of money then all forms of entertainment are.
    - pluma 8y ago
      Ooh, nice one. A genuine defense of gambling as pure entertainment rather than a system built on exploiting addicts and people's irrational perception of chance events. I haven't seen that in decades. Are you next going to say cigarettes aren't addictive? EDIT: Okay, fine, here are citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13929 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13929
      - cardboard 8y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by r0fl 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Should lotteries be No.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> ex: a $50 million commercial building. Would you force a sale of the asset and then strip away $40 million away Plenty of householders or businesses have to sell an asset to settle some debt or tax bill, why not estate taxes? Of course we might have to bring back capital controls for it to be functional.

mc32 8y ago

Exactly. The kind of millionaire you don’t want is thd one who hides money under the mattress. Those who invest or conspicuously splurge are a boon to the economy and to workers.

greeneggs 8y ago
This is wrong economically. Conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources. If a wealthy person and all her descendants save their money forever, then there's no harm to the economy. The money is just numbers in a computer, nothing concrete. (Politically, it could be dangerous, since there is always the threat that they could spend it.) If she spends it digging holes, on the other hand, then that's wasting real resources. It employs people, yes, but in a pointless task. Their labor could have been better deployed. There's obviously a continuum, but $100 million yachts are probably closer to the digging-holes side of the continuum. (But maybe not. For example, spending $10 million on a painting for that yacht has very little real effect, since aside from the purchase transfer overhead, it is mostly moving numbers from one bank account to another.)
- covercash 8y ago
  I imagine some of the r&d (tech, materials, manufacturing processes) leads to improvements in areas that less wealthy people benefit from.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- macspoofing 8y ago
  And how do you know what the correct usage of resources is? This is why communism _always_ fails. Every attempt at a top-down control of the entire economy will lead to failure. The economy is too complicated and chaotic for that to ever work.
  - jordanbeiber 8y ago
    I see this a lot — the jump straight to ”communism”, and it’s tiresome. I believe in this day and age we know a lot of things we didnt’t at the start of industrialization. As soon as someone starts talking about keeping mindful about consumption they somehow end up being supportive of full blown communism. Looking at the state of our earth you could easily say that capitalism doesn’t work, at all. It’s more nuanced than that though.
    - Pristina 8y ago
      > capitalism doesn’t work, at all. i look at north korea then i look at south korea. if capitalism doesn't work, at all, then communism must negatively work.
      - jordanbeiber 8y ago
        Questioning the end result of capitalism is obviously touchy for many... My comment was simply that you can question the state of capitalism in the world today without suggesting that communism should take it’s place. P.s Also, have a talk to the insects, polar bears, cheetahs (only 7000 of them beauties left), etc. Out of whack and out of balance.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"What about lottery winners who win over $10 million? Should lotteries be capped at $10 million? " Actually I think so. I would prefer if more people won a modest amount vs. one person winning tens of millions with a large jackpot.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
It would definitely make more people realize how much of a money waste lotteries are. If you'd expect to win $1000 every year, you'd quickly realize you spend more on tickets than you get back.
- Pristina 8y ago
  I can spend $1 on a ticket and feel an insane whirlwind of emotion imagining myself winning $1 billion, or i can spend $1 on a candy bar and feel some pleasure eating it. If buying a lottery ticket is a waste of money then all forms of entertainment are.
  - pluma 8y ago
    Ooh, nice one. A genuine defense of gambling as pure entertainment rather than a system built on exploiting addicts and people's irrational perception of chance events. I haven't seen that in decades. Are you next going to say cigarettes aren't addictive? EDIT: Okay, fine, here are citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13929 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13929
    - cardboard 8y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html