5 ms·

The annoying thing about these articles is it feels like someone is trying to shape my political opinions, but I'm not sure to what end. How am I supposed to f

by 13of40 2y ago

The annoying thing about these articles is it feels like someone is trying to shape my political opinions, but I'm not sure to what end. How am I supposed to finish the sentence, "I'm mad as heck at the b-b-b-billionaires, and therefore I'm going to..." Or is it just that they get a penny for my click?

yodon 2y ago
Vote
- voisin 2y ago
  For whom?
  - Smoosh 2y ago
    Everyone you can who may move the needle in the right direction. There are no guarantees that it will help, but doing nothing is even less likely to improve things.
wang_li 2y ago
They want you to start supporting redistributionist policies by making you feel it's unfair that someone who is a lot older than you and has worked many more years than you and pays a greater share of the tax burden than their share of the income has more money than you.
Dove 2y ago
... support policies that punish and ultimately eliminate rich people. Privately rich people have the power to change the world, sometimes for good and sometimes for evil. The dream is to eliminate the Bill Gateses, Elon Musks, Donald Trumps, and George Soroses of the world, so that only those connected to government and The Party have real financial power. Draw the line low enough, and it might eliminate the Paul Grahams of the world. Or even, as in Russia, small time independent farmers (https://www.britannica.com/topic/kulak https://www.britannica.com/topic/kulak ). I obviously think this is a terrible idea. Destroying the wealthy out of jealousy is a bloody impulse without a bottom that leaves everyone powerless. But it does greatly empower those who can make themselves exceptions to the rule, which is the actual point.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  > JP Doherty did not want to sign the email. But he knew he didn’t have a choice. His son, Rhys, was scheduled to have strabismus surgery in January, correcting an eye issue that made it difficult for him to walk on his own. The procedure cost $10,000 out of pocket. Doherty discussed the decision with his wife, and while she wanted him to be able to quit, they both knew the kids needed his health insurance.[0] How about destroying the wealthy because they ultimately decide if your child will get medical treatment? [0]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-ultimatum https://www.vanityfair.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-ultimatum
  - Dove 2y ago
    That's not a serious question. It's a sloppy and unfair assertion that is something you would only say if you'd already made up your mind. The wealthy are not a monolith - they are people. Judging one for the actions of another is fundamentally unjust. And equating layoffs to denial of medical care is a pretty big reach - there are a lot of mechanisms disconnecting the two. And even ignoring all of that, none of that adds up to a situation in which destroying people is either just or going to make things better. Rage without justice or reason is a solid indication you're being exploited. Not generally for your benefit, either. The people who want you to help them destroy the wealthy don't intend to make you president when they're done.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      I’ve had my own heath insurance revoked in a layoff, and I need it in order to keep walking. I don’t have much and if I lost that I don’t know what I’d do. You may think that the country can survive through unlimited inequality, but I suspect there is a limit.
      - Dove 2y ago
        I'm sorry for your troubles. I too have a lot of experience with the danger of being swallowed up by medical demons. CORBA isn't really a solution, and I don't really think Medicare[1] is either writ large (though it certainly can be writ small), but health cost sharing organizations might be worth a look. Treatment alternatives are always worth a look. For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that the combination of very expensive health care and the fact that health insurance is tied to employment effectively add up to a form of slavery. That's a great evil. I'm sorry it so directly affects you personally. It's easy to point to the employers who apparently benefit from the situation, but they didn't ask for things to be this way and are also struggling with how expensive your insurance is. If you lose health insurance in a layoff, that's an indication that the problem is bigger than your employer can handle on your behalf. You don't make enough money to cover your expenses - a harsh situation, but fundamentally a problem for charity, not for business. I think when we suffer, or are afraid we will suffer, it is easy to get angry at the wrong people. I would suggest that the billionaire next door has nothing to do with your medical stress (and for all you know, may be running a foundation to cure your disease), and that your beef ought to be with a medical industry that makes critical treatment so expensive and leaves you with so few alternatives. That is the kidnapper in this scenario, and everything else is arguing over who should pay the ransom. I could point to a dozen cursed mechanisms that make things that way. With pharmaceuticals alone, there seem to be a hundred different flavors of people held hostage by extremely and unnecessarily expensive treatments - a famous one being diabetics needing hundreds of dollars to pay for a medicine that the veterinary world manages to produce for horses for mere cents. The cost of medicine is making us poor, and somewhat enslaved to boot. This is not a problem of inequality. Medicare is an attempt to provide a financially equitable solution, and is struggling on both ends: doctors refusing to take it because it doesn't pay enough to cover their expenses, and the government concerned that the program is so expensive, it couldn't be paid for no matter how much you took from all the rich people. The problem is not the distribution of money, but the cost of the service itself. The industry is in crisis on many levels, and due for a total reboot. And there are lots of (sometimes rich!) people attempting just that. I can point to the direct primary care phenomenon and the recent revolution in type 2 diabetes care as two obvious and recent ones. But there are zillions - I even see YC companies in the health space pretty frequently. Broadly speaking, I would say that we as a population are becoming sicker and are leaning on a medical industry that can't own up to its own inability to make us well - but is willing to very expensively fail at the job. (And I don't just mean obesity and heart disease, though those are obvious examples - it seems to me that many health problems follow this pattern.) That opinion puts me pretty far outside the mainstream, but then again I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that the mainstream is in crisis. There are specific paths out of the disaster, for specific people and specific problems. Look for them, and keep looking, and help others. In the mean time, be careful with frustration and rage. Plenty of forces want to exploit your anger for their ends - don't get played. Be clear on what the problem actually is and stay focused on that. [1] I am using "Medicare" as a metonymy for Medicare, Medicaid, and similar plans both real and proposed, to pay for medical care via taxes.
snapplebobapple 2y ago
They are trying to trick you into thinking more taxes (and therefore more government) is a good idea, when the better idea is just enforcing antitrust law again because the problem isnt rich people, its the market power their corporations can exert. Amazon isn't the problem. Amazon being able to exert marketpower to abuse their customers and suppliers is. The solution is outlawing bad practices up to breaking up the market power abusing company if mitigation doesnt seem possible. also, it is extremely annoying when people mislead by looking at personal income tax without adjuating the effective tax rate up by what has already been paid by the corporation. Dividend and cap gains taxes should be lower because the corp pays tax and how a dollar is earned shouldnt affect the tax paid on it. The goal is for the corp tax plus the dividend/cap gains tax to roughly equal what the tax would be if the person just earned the dollar personally and it largely does that at these rates.
- PorterBHall 2y ago
  More taxes or better tax enforcement doesn’t necessarily mean more government. Those revenues can be applied to closing the budget deficit and even paying down national debt, as the Clinton administration was able to do in the 90s.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    Lets ignore that it's not really clear that Clinton raised taxes (he increased the income tax rate but dropped the capital gains tax rate, which is pretty unclear as to effect because it took a while for people to adjust their tax strategy to move as much as possible to capital gains). What happened under Clinton was primarily the same thing that happened up here in Canada, the dotcom caused a massive inflation in income as the stock bubble grew and was crystalized. It primarily wasn't more taxes, it was the taxes we primarily already had taking a share of a bigger pie. Overwhelmingly this isn't what happens though. Overwhelmingly more taxes mean more government in a historical context.

by 13of40 2y ago

yodon 2y ago

Vote

voisin 2y ago
For whom?
- Smoosh 2y ago
  Everyone you can who may move the needle in the right direction. There are no guarantees that it will help, but doing nothing is even less likely to improve things.

wang_li 2y ago

They want you to start supporting redistributionist policies by making you feel it's unfair that someone who is a lot older than you and has worked many more years than you and pays a greater share of the tax burden than their share of the income has more money than you.

Dove 2y ago

... support policies that punish and ultimately eliminate rich people. Privately rich people have the power to change the world, sometimes for good and sometimes for evil. The dream is to eliminate the Bill Gateses, Elon Musks, Donald Trumps, and George Soroses of the world, so that only those connected to government and The Party have real financial power. Draw the line low enough, and it might eliminate the Paul Grahams of the world. Or even, as in Russia, small time independent farmers (https://www.britannica.com/topic/kulak https://www.britannica.com/topic/kulak ). I obviously think this is a terrible idea. Destroying the wealthy out of jealousy is a bloody impulse without a bottom that leaves everyone powerless. But it does greatly empower those who can make themselves exceptions to the rule, which is the actual point.

silverquiet 2y ago
> JP Doherty did not want to sign the email. But he knew he didn’t have a choice. His son, Rhys, was scheduled to have strabismus surgery in January, correcting an eye issue that made it difficult for him to walk on his own. The procedure cost $10,000 out of pocket. Doherty discussed the decision with his wife, and while she wanted him to be able to quit, they both knew the kids needed his health insurance.[0] How about destroying the wealthy because they ultimately decide if your child will get medical treatment? [0]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-ultimatum https://www.vanityfair.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-ultimatum
- Dove 2y ago
  That's not a serious question. It's a sloppy and unfair assertion that is something you would only say if you'd already made up your mind. The wealthy are not a monolith - they are people. Judging one for the actions of another is fundamentally unjust. And equating layoffs to denial of medical care is a pretty big reach - there are a lot of mechanisms disconnecting the two. And even ignoring all of that, none of that adds up to a situation in which destroying people is either just or going to make things better. Rage without justice or reason is a solid indication you're being exploited. Not generally for your benefit, either. The people who want you to help them destroy the wealthy don't intend to make you president when they're done.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I’ve had my own heath insurance revoked in a layoff, and I need it in order to keep walking. I don’t have much and if I lost that I don’t know what I’d do. You may think that the country can survive through unlimited inequality, but I suspect there is a limit.
    - Dove 2y ago
      I'm sorry for your troubles. I too have a lot of experience with the danger of being swallowed up by medical demons. CORBA isn't really a solution, and I don't really think Medicare[1] is either writ large (though it certainly can be writ small), but health cost sharing organizations might be worth a look. Treatment alternatives are always worth a look. For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that the combination of very expensive health care and the fact that health insurance is tied to employment effectively add up to a form of slavery. That's a great evil. I'm sorry it so directly affects you personally. It's easy to point to the employers who apparently benefit from the situation, but they didn't ask for things to be this way and are also struggling with how expensive your insurance is. If you lose health insurance in a layoff, that's an indication that the problem is bigger than your employer can handle on your behalf. You don't make enough money to cover your expenses - a harsh situation, but fundamentally a problem for charity, not for business. I think when we suffer, or are afraid we will suffer, it is easy to get angry at the wrong people. I would suggest that the billionaire next door has nothing to do with your medical stress (and for all you know, may be running a foundation to cure your disease), and that your beef ought to be with a medical industry that makes critical treatment so expensive and leaves you with so few alternatives. That is the kidnapper in this scenario, and everything else is arguing over who should pay the ransom. I could point to a dozen cursed mechanisms that make things that way. With pharmaceuticals alone, there seem to be a hundred different flavors of people held hostage by extremely and unnecessarily expensive treatments - a famous one being diabetics needing hundreds of dollars to pay for a medicine that the veterinary world manages to produce for horses for mere cents. The cost of medicine is making us poor, and somewhat enslaved to boot. This is not a problem of inequality. Medicare is an attempt to provide a financially equitable solution, and is struggling on both ends: doctors refusing to take it because it doesn't pay enough to cover their expenses, and the government concerned that the program is so expensive, it couldn't be paid for no matter how much you took from all the rich people. The problem is not the distribution of money, but the cost of the service itself. The industry is in crisis on many levels, and due for a total reboot. And there are lots of (sometimes rich!) people attempting just that. I can point to the direct primary care phenomenon and the recent revolution in type 2 diabetes care as two obvious and recent ones. But there are zillions - I even see YC companies in the health space pretty frequently. Broadly speaking, I would say that we as a population are becoming sicker and are leaning on a medical industry that can't own up to its own inability to make us well - but is willing to very expensively fail at the job. (And I don't just mean obesity and heart disease, though those are obvious examples - it seems to me that many health problems follow this pattern.) That opinion puts me pretty far outside the mainstream, but then again I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that the mainstream is in crisis. There are specific paths out of the disaster, for specific people and specific problems. Look for them, and keep looking, and help others. In the mean time, be careful with frustration and rage. Plenty of forces want to exploit your anger for their ends - don't get played. Be clear on what the problem actually is and stay focused on that. [1] I am using "Medicare" as a metonymy for Medicare, Medicaid, and similar plans both real and proposed, to pay for medical care via taxes.

snapplebobapple 2y ago

They are trying to trick you into thinking more taxes (and therefore more government) is a good idea, when the better idea is just enforcing antitrust law again because the problem isnt rich people, its the market power their corporations can exert. Amazon isn't the problem. Amazon being able to exert marketpower to abuse their customers and suppliers is. The solution is outlawing bad practices up to breaking up the market power abusing company if mitigation doesnt seem possible. also, it is extremely annoying when people mislead by looking at personal income tax without adjuating the effective tax rate up by what has already been paid by the corporation. Dividend and cap gains taxes should be lower because the corp pays tax and how a dollar is earned shouldnt affect the tax paid on it. The goal is for the corp tax plus the dividend/cap gains tax to roughly equal what the tax would be if the person just earned the dollar personally and it largely does that at these rates.

PorterBHall 2y ago
More taxes or better tax enforcement doesn’t necessarily mean more government. Those revenues can be applied to closing the budget deficit and even paying down national debt, as the Clinton administration was able to do in the 90s.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Lets ignore that it's not really clear that Clinton raised taxes (he increased the income tax rate but dropped the capital gains tax rate, which is pretty unclear as to effect because it took a while for people to adjust their tax strategy to move as much as possible to capital gains). What happened under Clinton was primarily the same thing that happened up here in Canada, the dotcom caused a massive inflation in income as the stock bubble grew and was crystalized. It primarily wasn't more taxes, it was the taxes we primarily already had taking a share of a bigger pie. Overwhelmingly this isn't what happens though. Overwhelmingly more taxes mean more government in a historical context.