3 ms·

> You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), [...] Helicopter money transfers real wealth

by eru 1y ago

> You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), [...] Helicopter money transfers real wealth from the people who previously held cash. It creates nominal wealth, but not real wealth. > It should also make intuitive sense - if the rich (lets say top 5%) hold 95% of wealth it means there is less for everyone else - less wealth that is because the resources like land, apartments and good education are finite and not abundant. Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea. That's basically just the idea from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44411538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44411538 inverted. Many people have a hard time seeing that wealth can increase, but it's pretty easy to see that total wealth can decrease: I can set fire to my piano, and no one else gets any better because of it.

voidhorse 1y ago
> Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea. You are conflating two different things, wealth and misery. Wealth is about material resources not misery or happiness. This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich. Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes and their twentieth estate make them "more miserable" sure, probably, but it also secures the independence of the people you make that house available to (rather than make them permanent wage slaves to the landed class that just scoops up homes that they don't materially need need to extract rents etc).
- xienze 1y ago
  > This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich. You realize most of this wealth is tied up in stocks and other assets that anyone can purchase, right? > Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford? > and their twentieth estate And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place?
  - voidhorse 1y ago
    Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily. It doesn't matter that "anyone can purchase them". If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount. > But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford? I didn't mention either of these people. There are plenty of people not in the limelight that do precisely the things I'm talking about, often through banks and companies that they run—I can have my investment firm buy property and increase my salary off the extracted rents and it achieves the same thing. > And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place? Exactly. You just restated the problem with inequality. It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources. Further they can they use this exclusivity to further entrench their positions.
    - xienze 1y ago
      > If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount. And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist. > Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily. Sure, but this isn't the infinite money glitch people seem to think it is. The loan and its interest have to get repaid with... money! That's first taxed! And anything purchased is... subject to taxation! > It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources. Look, no matter how little income inequality is, you're gonna have to be rich to say, buy a building in Manhattan or a house in some similarly coveted area.
arbitrary_name 1y ago
How does taking some ones second mansion away to help feed struggling family decrease happiness? If there is a net decrease, the rich person needs to examine their priorities.
- eru 1y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

by eru 1y ago

voidhorse 1y ago

> Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea. You are conflating two different things, wealth and misery. Wealth is about material resources not misery or happiness. This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich. Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes and their twentieth estate make them "more miserable" sure, probably, but it also secures the independence of the people you make that house available to (rather than make them permanent wage slaves to the landed class that just scoops up homes that they don't materially need need to extract rents etc).

xienze 1y ago
> This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich. You realize most of this wealth is tied up in stocks and other assets that anyone can purchase, right? > Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford? > and their twentieth estate And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place?
- voidhorse 1y ago
  Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily. It doesn't matter that "anyone can purchase them". If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount. > But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford? I didn't mention either of these people. There are plenty of people not in the limelight that do precisely the things I'm talking about, often through banks and companies that they run—I can have my investment firm buy property and increase my salary off the extracted rents and it achieves the same thing. > And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place? Exactly. You just restated the problem with inequality. It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources. Further they can they use this exclusivity to further entrench their positions.
  - xienze 1y ago
    > If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount. And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist. > Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily. Sure, but this isn't the infinite money glitch people seem to think it is. The loan and its interest have to get repaid with... money! That's first taxed! And anything purchased is... subject to taxation! > It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources. Look, no matter how little income inequality is, you're gonna have to be rich to say, buy a building in Manhattan or a house in some similarly coveted area.

arbitrary_name 1y ago

How does taking some ones second mansion away to help feed struggling family decrease happiness? If there is a net decrease, the rich person needs to examine their priorities.

eru 1y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss