5 ms·

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this called The Two Income Trap [0] [0] https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX

by knubie 4y ago

yuppie_scum 4y ago
Fun fact, her Cambridge house is worth north of 3.1 million.
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  She’s just like Bernie Sanders, a lot of talk about the poor and no action. Hypocrites.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Having a house worth that much isn't evidence of inaction and it's definitely not hypocrisy. Their argument isn't "if you have 5 million dollars you're a bad person".
    - cvwright 4y ago
      But that is their hypocrisy. If you have a thousand times more than most people, nbd. If you have a thousand times more than them, then that’s an outrage.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The outrage is not having that much money, it's that taxes are too low for those people. But also, those two are not that rich. The top 1% is the biggest net you could reasonably cast for "too much wealth", and they're below that $11M threshold. Another good reference point is "what would have gotten you called a millionaire around 1800-1930, before we had several decades of consistent inflation", and the answer is at least 25 million dollars today.
        chiefalchemist 4y ago
        Perhaps. But it doesn't help that instead of paying taxes many don't donate significantly on their own. The argument against taxes is that the government will squander it. It is, in the context of history, a solid argument. Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? (Maybe we should, but it's a complicated answer compared to upping income taxes). It's strange the Warren and her ilk could be a model for such a path, and yet refuse to do so. *Nothing* is preventing them, not even the tax code (as they could often make such donations tax deductible). But maybe they need that bigger more expensive home? The rest of us don't understand where that is.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Donating a significant fraction of their money is not a model for how higher taxes would work. At best it shows they're 110% serious, and at worst it encourages the "all welfare should be based on donations" crowd. According to this article from a couple years ago, "Elizabeth Warren and her husband have contributed about $420,000 to charity since 2008". That's not a huge percent of her income but it seems like a solid amount to me, depending on which of these wealth estimates is actually correct. So sure "nothing" is preventing them from doing more, but there's also no big pressing reason to do so. It's not like she doesn't donate at all, and if she's actually in the 99% then whatever that's enough of a donation. And Bernie's definitely in the 99% and donated a hundred thousand over the same time period. > Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? I feel like "discourage" is much too strong of a word here. Capital gains taxes could be 80% and people would still invest their money. What else are they going to do with it?
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      Not a bad person...but to say,"we need to help the poor" and then to have a home value that could buy 10+ homes (in most areas) certainly feels askew. Nothing stops her and similar from donating a higher percentage of their wealth to non-profits. She could have brought a $2M home - and lived quite well - and donated $1M*. But she didn't. What are we to make of that, if not hypocritical? * I understand it's a mortgage. But she could have went smaller and donated the difference monthly.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        What's most areas? The median US home is $400k, for reference. And would donating 25% of her wealth make people stop complaining? I doubt it. But it's more of an increase than any tax proposal I've seen.
  - tamaharbor 4y ago
    In many instances owning an expensive house is just a matter of time and location. My parents have a $2M home in NYC. They struggled to buy it for $30k in 1980.
    - 88913527 4y ago
      In all instances, it's a matter of time and place (moreso the former than the latter); we can see huge generational divides in homeownership rates by generation.
  - 58028641 4y ago
    What exactly do you expect them to do?
  - ss108 4y ago
    ? They literally try to help for a living. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't. But it's lazy to label them hypocrites.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  ah yes. anyone who is poor is jealous, and anyone who is rich is a hypocrite! How dare they espouse values like... the betterment of society? sick burn!
  - gruez 4y ago
    >and anyone who is rich is a hypocrite! How dare they espouse values like... the betterment of society? sick burn! This is funny to hear after a few days of FTX/SBF threads, where a common talking point was how SBF's activities in effective altruism (aka. "espouse values like... the betterment of society") was some sort of selfish ploy to improve his public image.
refurb 4y ago
Based on recent statements by Warren, her economic chops should be highly suspect. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disregard-livelihoods-millions-elizabeth-warren-184500239.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disregard-livelihoods-million... “These statements reflect an apparent disregard for the livelihoods of millions of working Americans, and we are deeply concerned that your interest rate hikes risk slowing the economy to a crawl while failing to slow rising prices that continue to harm families.” She's a populist. Say whatever get the masses riled up with no regard to actually making sound decisions.

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this called The Two Income Trap [0] [0] https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX

by knubie 4y ago

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this called The Two Income Trap [0] [0] https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX https://a.co/d/iA9xxIX

yuppie_scum 4y ago

Fun fact, her Cambridge house is worth north of 3.1 million.

throwaway5959 4y ago
She’s just like Bernie Sanders, a lot of talk about the poor and no action. Hypocrites.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Having a house worth that much isn't evidence of inaction and it's definitely not hypocrisy. Their argument isn't "if you have 5 million dollars you're a bad person".
  - cvwright 4y ago
    But that is their hypocrisy. If you have a thousand times more than most people, nbd. If you have a thousand times more than them, then that’s an outrage.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The outrage is not having that much money, it's that taxes are too low for those people. But also, those two are not that rich. The top 1% is the biggest net you could reasonably cast for "too much wealth", and they're below that $11M threshold. Another good reference point is "what would have gotten you called a millionaire around 1800-1930, before we had several decades of consistent inflation", and the answer is at least 25 million dollars today.
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        Perhaps. But it doesn't help that instead of paying taxes many don't donate significantly on their own. The argument against taxes is that the government will squander it. It is, in the context of history, a solid argument. Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? (Maybe we should, but it's a complicated answer compared to upping income taxes). It's strange the Warren and her ilk could be a model for such a path, and yet refuse to do so. *Nothing* is preventing them, not even the tax code (as they could often make such donations tax deductible). But maybe they need that bigger more expensive home? The rest of us don't understand where that is.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Donating a significant fraction of their money is not a model for how higher taxes would work. At best it shows they're 110% serious, and at worst it encourages the "all welfare should be based on donations" crowd. According to this article from a couple years ago, "Elizabeth Warren and her husband have contributed about $420,000 to charity since 2008". That's not a huge percent of her income but it seems like a solid amount to me, depending on which of these wealth estimates is actually correct. So sure "nothing" is preventing them from doing more, but there's also no big pressing reason to do so. It's not like she doesn't donate at all, and if she's actually in the 99% then whatever that's enough of a donation. And Bernie's definitely in the 99% and donated a hundred thousand over the same time period. > Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? I feel like "discourage" is much too strong of a word here. Capital gains taxes could be 80% and people would still invest their money. What else are they going to do with it?
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Not a bad person...but to say,"we need to help the poor" and then to have a home value that could buy 10+ homes (in most areas) certainly feels askew. Nothing stops her and similar from donating a higher percentage of their wealth to non-profits. She could have brought a $2M home - and lived quite well - and donated $1M*. But she didn't. What are we to make of that, if not hypocritical? * I understand it's a mortgage. But she could have went smaller and donated the difference monthly.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      What's most areas? The median US home is $400k, for reference. And would donating 25% of her wealth make people stop complaining? I doubt it. But it's more of an increase than any tax proposal I've seen.
- tamaharbor 4y ago
  In many instances owning an expensive house is just a matter of time and location. My parents have a $2M home in NYC. They struggled to buy it for $30k in 1980.
  - 88913527 4y ago
    In all instances, it's a matter of time and place (moreso the former than the latter); we can see huge generational divides in homeownership rates by generation.
- 58028641 4y ago
  What exactly do you expect them to do?
- ss108 4y ago
  ? They literally try to help for a living. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't. But it's lazy to label them hypocrites.
bobkazamakis 4y ago
ah yes. anyone who is poor is jealous, and anyone who is rich is a hypocrite! How dare they espouse values like... the betterment of society? sick burn!
- gruez 4y ago
  >and anyone who is rich is a hypocrite! How dare they espouse values like... the betterment of society? sick burn! This is funny to hear after a few days of FTX/SBF threads, where a common talking point was how SBF's activities in effective altruism (aka. "espouse values like... the betterment of society") was some sort of selfish ploy to improve his public image.

refurb 4y ago

Based on recent statements by Warren, her economic chops should be highly suspect. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disregard-livelihoods-millions-elizabeth-warren-184500239.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disregard-livelihoods-million... “These statements reflect an apparent disregard for the livelihoods of millions of working Americans, and we are deeply concerned that your interest rate hikes risk slowing the economy to a crawl while failing to slow rising prices that continue to harm families.” She's a populist. Say whatever get the masses riled up with no regard to actually making sound decisions.