3 ms·

Wealth, Shown to Scale

9 points by diwank 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hmmokidk 2y ago
This is great. I would worry that the link may detract from your point. I feel like when you discuss this stuff you have to come across as extra mature and boring otherwise people tweak. Really good project and well executed. Could be nice to zoom out as well to just jump to the tldr. Also if it’s possible to communicate somehow…how taxes are less than ever and in america’s prime problem with that much wealth we’re taxed extraordinarily. And everything was great.
wesselbindt 2y ago
> A wealth of data [1] now supports the idea that one-time cash transfers can permanently transform a local economy. Given a sudden windfall, people invest in their future. They go back to school, obtain transportation, pay for childcare, pay down debilitating debts, and do any number of things to improve their career prospects and financial future This was interesting to me. It's in the section on the wealth of the 400 wealthiest Americans (who own about 3 trillion dollars). They look at what you can do with a 1-time 5% wealth tax. And most of it is stuff like preventing hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year, which immediately raises the question "what do we do 20 ish years from now?". But you can permanently lift 38 million Americans out of poverty to no longer worry if they'll have a roof over their head tomorrow (or ever), or if they can feed their children. And from the spending patterns of the poor, this money will go straight back into the economy rather than being hoarded. This is not a structural change, but a one-time miniscule tax on 400 people in the US, and it'd have a lasting positive impact on society. It is an absolute positive, but it will not happen because the media and politicians (both sides) have been completely captured by billionaires to the point of not even acknowledging it when one of them does two Hitler salutes on stage. [1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/ https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/
Aeolun 2y ago
As good as this stuff is. The annual budget of the US is also 6.75 trillion. That's not total wealth. That's what is spent every single year. If all these things are feasible with the wealth of the 400 richest people then it's also possible with a drop in a bucket of the US annual budget, yet the government decides not to do these things for some reason.
- hmmokidk 2y ago
  That money essentially gets funneled back to the rich in a way where they grow in power consistently and the government loses a little power each time. The richer the rich are the more influence they have over the government and the more they are able to obtain government funds. It’s a vicious cycle. They need to be taxed or else we all suffer. The fewer assets the government has the less it can do with the same amount of money, IE if it’s renting a building from a rich person as opposed to owning it. An example is: Elon just said to privatize the USPS and Amtrak. If he accomplishes that then it would essentially make the government less rich in assets and the rich richer, it will increase the expenses of using those things for the government and increase the power of the wealthy. Again, means the government can accomplish less with the same amount of $$$. I think the link above needs more learning resources like Gary’s Economics or something.

9 points by diwank 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

This is great. I would worry that the link may detract from your point. I feel like when you discuss this stuff you have to come across as extra mature and boring otherwise people tweak. Really good project and well executed. Could be nice to zoom out as well to just jump to the tldr. Also if it’s possible to communicate somehow…how taxes are less than ever and in america’s prime problem with that much wealth we’re taxed extraordinarily. And everything was great.

wesselbindt 2y ago

> A wealth of data [1] now supports the idea that one-time cash transfers can permanently transform a local economy. Given a sudden windfall, people invest in their future. They go back to school, obtain transportation, pay for childcare, pay down debilitating debts, and do any number of things to improve their career prospects and financial future This was interesting to me. It's in the section on the wealth of the 400 wealthiest Americans (who own about 3 trillion dollars). They look at what you can do with a 1-time 5% wealth tax. And most of it is stuff like preventing hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year, which immediately raises the question "what do we do 20 ish years from now?". But you can permanently lift 38 million Americans out of poverty to no longer worry if they'll have a roof over their head tomorrow (or ever), or if they can feed their children. And from the spending patterns of the poor, this money will go straight back into the economy rather than being hoarded. This is not a structural change, but a one-time miniscule tax on 400 people in the US, and it'd have a lasting positive impact on society. It is an absolute positive, but it will not happen because the media and politicians (both sides) have been completely captured by billionaires to the point of not even acknowledging it when one of them does two Hitler salutes on stage. [1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/ https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/

Aeolun 2y ago

As good as this stuff is. The annual budget of the US is also 6.75 trillion. That's not total wealth. That's what is spent every single year. If all these things are feasible with the wealth of the 400 richest people then it's also possible with a drop in a bucket of the US annual budget, yet the government decides not to do these things for some reason.

hmmokidk 2y ago
That money essentially gets funneled back to the rich in a way where they grow in power consistently and the government loses a little power each time. The richer the rich are the more influence they have over the government and the more they are able to obtain government funds. It’s a vicious cycle. They need to be taxed or else we all suffer. The fewer assets the government has the less it can do with the same amount of money, IE if it’s renting a building from a rich person as opposed to owning it. An example is: Elon just said to privatize the USPS and Amtrak. If he accomplishes that then it would essentially make the government less rich in assets and the rich richer, it will increase the expenses of using those things for the government and increase the power of the wealthy. Again, means the government can accomplish less with the same amount of $$$. I think the link above needs more learning resources like Gary’s Economics or something.