4 ms·

you can redistribute real resources - every person spending their life working on a rich persons yacht rather than helping educate the next generation due to th

you can redistribute real resources - every person spending their life working on a rich persons yacht rather than helping educate the next generation due to the price system, for instance, is a real distribution of resources. this is why consumption taxes are modern and valuable

_heimdall 2y ago
If we have to have taxes, I'm very much in favor of a consumption tax. It doesn't work for our current system though, capitalism kind of hits a wall when spending money is disincentivized (compared to saving money or simply not trying to earn more). Redistribution of wealth is tricky and almost certainly runs into the same wall I mentioned in my last comment. When everyone competing with each other (financially) see a similar bump in income they didn't really change anything. Redistribution is more helpful when targeting the wealth gap and not very useful when considering how wealtht the majority of people "feel". That said, I 100% agree people shouldn't be working their entire life on a rich person's boat. That's a much bigger, and more fundamental, problem though. That gets to the core of a debt-based society and the need for self reliance. The most effective way to get out from under someone else's boot (financially) is to work towards a spot where you aren't dependent on them or the job's income.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  The most effective way to get out from under someone else's boot (financially) is to work towards a spot where you aren't dependent on them or the job's income. 100% this but entire system is setup to make sure this doesn't happen at scale. even here on HN if you post something along these lines but in real terms you will get downvoted like crazy and get even crazier comments. the system is setup to make sure there are workers, w2 workers. this is why there is student loans and this is why schools do not teach you to be an entrepreneur, to be a salesman, to hustle for yourself and not for someone else. I see so many people here talking about leetcode and faang and I think to myself that is just modern day slavery. if you are LXXX at say Meta making say $750k/year, I think the same - you are a modern-day slave. if Meta is paying you $750k/year that really means that you are worth twice that, if not more. no company is going to pay you more than you are worth to them and they won't even break even with you so-to-speak so you can bank on this fact whoever you work for and whatever you bank. though there is a big difference between working on someone's yacht and making $750k the principles are the same but system is working hard and succeeding in making sure it stays as it is...
  - anticensor 2y ago
    There are marketing schools so they teach you to be a marketeer&sales person, a bad one at the latter.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      so in order to be taught how to capitalism hard one has to go to a specialised school like kids with special needs need special teachers?
      - anticensor 2y ago
        Yes, it's a specialised degree track: marketing is a full on 4 year degree with a possibility of continuing to postgraduate programs, including leading to Doctor of Marketing: https://www.hbs.edu/doctoral/phd-programs/marketing/Pages/default.aspx https://www.hbs.edu/doctoral/phd-programs/marketing/Pages/de...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > but entire system is setup to make sure this doesn't happen at scale This has been getting less and less true since the Industrial Revolution. We’re not quite at the point where we don’t need menial labour. But we can sure see the through line to it. The alternate future to the despairingly unemployed is every person being something of an owner. > if Meta is paying you $750k/year that really means that you are worth twice that, if not more Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Also, if you’re being paid $750k/year, you’d better be worth more than $1.5mm to your employer, because taxes and regulatory costs are typically estimated around 100% of base up to the low millions.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      This has been getting less and less true since the Industrial Revolution. how so? what do you think is the breakdown between say working people in the USA (excluding gig-jobs cause you know…) who are W2 vs. 1099 and/or business owners? 99.78% to 0.22% roughly?
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  there are lots of redistributions that are net beneficial even when you account for the incentive hit. marginal increases in the estate tax, for instance, almost certainly fall under this umbrella i don't agree that debt is the problem
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > i don't agree that debt is the problem Totally fair, by no means is that a settled issue. Debt is just my opinion of a likely root cause. > there are lots of redistributions that are net beneficial even when you account for the incentive hit. marginal increases in the estate tax, for instance, almost certainly fall under this umbrella That requires a lot more context to answer. The costs and benefits considered are important to lay out. Without that context I really can't say if it's a net benefit or not, I would assume that two average people would have a different list of factors they'd consider when saying whether its a net benefit or not. Personally I don't see estate taxes as net beneficial. I don't agree with the principle that death is a taxable event, and I don't prefer the government to have in incentives to see people die (i.e. when someone with an estate dies the government makes money). Financially, to stick with just the numbers, I don't consider $66B in annual revenue worth the bureaucracy or legal complexity required to manage the estate tax program.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      Transfers are taxable, either as gifts or income. Not sure why we would exempt inheritance flows. $66B seems like a pretty good haul, that could easily be much larger given the massive portion of wealth that is inherited, and is 5x the budget of the IRS. And the disincentive effects are much smaller than taxing the equivalent in directly earned income.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I get that today's laws do allow for taxing estate transfers as a taxable event. The personal concern I was raising is that I don't thing it should be taxable, not whether today's laws allow for taxing it. When my parents die, assuming they go before me, I don't see why the government should be involved. To be clear, my parents are well below estate tax thresholds, but the underlying premise is the same. Someone's relative dying and leaving them an estate shouldn't by a taxable event as far as um concerned. $66B should be a lot of money, but our federal government doesn't know what it means to balance a budget. We could easily cut $66B in current spending if we cared.

_heimdall 2y ago

If we have to have taxes, I'm very much in favor of a consumption tax. It doesn't work for our current system though, capitalism kind of hits a wall when spending money is disincentivized (compared to saving money or simply not trying to earn more). Redistribution of wealth is tricky and almost certainly runs into the same wall I mentioned in my last comment. When everyone competing with each other (financially) see a similar bump in income they didn't really change anything. Redistribution is more helpful when targeting the wealth gap and not very useful when considering how wealtht the majority of people "feel". That said, I 100% agree people shouldn't be working their entire life on a rich person's boat. That's a much bigger, and more fundamental, problem though. That gets to the core of a debt-based society and the need for self reliance. The most effective way to get out from under someone else's boot (financially) is to work towards a spot where you aren't dependent on them or the job's income.

bdangubic 2y ago
The most effective way to get out from under someone else's boot (financially) is to work towards a spot where you aren't dependent on them or the job's income. 100% this but entire system is setup to make sure this doesn't happen at scale. even here on HN if you post something along these lines but in real terms you will get downvoted like crazy and get even crazier comments. the system is setup to make sure there are workers, w2 workers. this is why there is student loans and this is why schools do not teach you to be an entrepreneur, to be a salesman, to hustle for yourself and not for someone else. I see so many people here talking about leetcode and faang and I think to myself that is just modern day slavery. if you are LXXX at say Meta making say $750k/year, I think the same - you are a modern-day slave. if Meta is paying you $750k/year that really means that you are worth twice that, if not more. no company is going to pay you more than you are worth to them and they won't even break even with you so-to-speak so you can bank on this fact whoever you work for and whatever you bank. though there is a big difference between working on someone's yacht and making $750k the principles are the same but system is working hard and succeeding in making sure it stays as it is...
- anticensor 2y ago
  There are marketing schools so they teach you to be a marketeer&sales person, a bad one at the latter.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    so in order to be taught how to capitalism hard one has to go to a specialised school like kids with special needs need special teachers?
    - anticensor 2y ago
      Yes, it's a specialised degree track: marketing is a full on 4 year degree with a possibility of continuing to postgraduate programs, including leading to Doctor of Marketing: https://www.hbs.edu/doctoral/phd-programs/marketing/Pages/default.aspx https://www.hbs.edu/doctoral/phd-programs/marketing/Pages/de...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > but entire system is setup to make sure this doesn't happen at scale This has been getting less and less true since the Industrial Revolution. We’re not quite at the point where we don’t need menial labour. But we can sure see the through line to it. The alternate future to the despairingly unemployed is every person being something of an owner. > if Meta is paying you $750k/year that really means that you are worth twice that, if not more Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Also, if you’re being paid $750k/year, you’d better be worth more than $1.5mm to your employer, because taxes and regulatory costs are typically estimated around 100% of base up to the low millions.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    This has been getting less and less true since the Industrial Revolution. how so? what do you think is the breakdown between say working people in the USA (excluding gig-jobs cause you know…) who are W2 vs. 1099 and/or business owners? 99.78% to 0.22% roughly?
whimsicalism 2y ago
there are lots of redistributions that are net beneficial even when you account for the incentive hit. marginal increases in the estate tax, for instance, almost certainly fall under this umbrella i don't agree that debt is the problem
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > i don't agree that debt is the problem Totally fair, by no means is that a settled issue. Debt is just my opinion of a likely root cause. > there are lots of redistributions that are net beneficial even when you account for the incentive hit. marginal increases in the estate tax, for instance, almost certainly fall under this umbrella That requires a lot more context to answer. The costs and benefits considered are important to lay out. Without that context I really can't say if it's a net benefit or not, I would assume that two average people would have a different list of factors they'd consider when saying whether its a net benefit or not. Personally I don't see estate taxes as net beneficial. I don't agree with the principle that death is a taxable event, and I don't prefer the government to have in incentives to see people die (i.e. when someone with an estate dies the government makes money). Financially, to stick with just the numbers, I don't consider $66B in annual revenue worth the bureaucracy or legal complexity required to manage the estate tax program.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    Transfers are taxable, either as gifts or income. Not sure why we would exempt inheritance flows. $66B seems like a pretty good haul, that could easily be much larger given the massive portion of wealth that is inherited, and is 5x the budget of the IRS. And the disincentive effects are much smaller than taxing the equivalent in directly earned income.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I get that today's laws do allow for taxing estate transfers as a taxable event. The personal concern I was raising is that I don't thing it should be taxable, not whether today's laws allow for taxing it. When my parents die, assuming they go before me, I don't see why the government should be involved. To be clear, my parents are well below estate tax thresholds, but the underlying premise is the same. Someone's relative dying and leaving them an estate shouldn't by a taxable event as far as um concerned. $66B should be a lot of money, but our federal government doesn't know what it means to balance a budget. We could easily cut $66B in current spending if we cared.