YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Those are your choices. Choose freely!

Look at that last bar; consider just the annual yield or interest payment on that wealth; soon, it's going to be more than all other bars combined. If people understood the situation, they would all stop working and start making lists of who these people are and work for them. That's the only logical (legal) thing to do. Every other job or career is a waste of time.

That being said, one accident or illness that strips away that doctor's ability to earn, leaving them in a soul crushing amount of debt that can't be discharged via bankruptcy. Their debt obligations are real.

Services that have an incentive to serve said americans, because it is them who own them.

You are completely right that this capital is super useful for society. It would just be infinitely more useful if it was in the hands of society.

Why would that be worse? What online services are so important that it's better to have them than to lift some people above the poverty line? Rich people spending is the next best thing after taxing them - it distributes their money and provides jobs. It would strictly improve the society if Bezos spent lots of money and folded his servers and warehouses - in so many different ways...

Yeah. Like renting a house for a mother of 2 children who will never get her own by selling her labour, while the renter uses her money to buy more units.

A large portion of billionaire wealth isn't reinvested in productive assets. It comes from holding onto assets like corporate shares and land that grows in value based on the asset's ability to extract profit or rent. Or from distorted (speculative) demand for that asset that is completely detached from its productive output.

Someone like Bernard Arnault is worth around $160B (wealth from luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Tiffany). That paper valuation exceeds the total national wealth of many entire countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_pri...

Retirement age keeps increasing, public healthcare keep getting defunded. My tax money is getting used to enrich war mongers and my cost of life keeps increasing as a result of all of that.

Also my constitutional rights are ignored daily.

You understand why I might not be feeling very happy that YOU are doing great?

But you’re probably one health scare away from it, you just don’t realize it.

1. Outsized political influence (in theory can be mitigated by laws controlling corporate spending, but obviously those laws themselves are subject to manipulation by the rich and powerful)

2. Distortion in who the economy serves. The beauty of capitalism is that it's a problem-detection and problem-solving system. If a narrow set of people have a huge portion of money, the economy becomes unduly optimized toward satisfying their wants and needs.

3. Despite best efforts, we ultimately must share a lot of the same commons. Even being a billionaire in NYC or San Francisco can't really give you a walk to work or your child's school that feels as safe as it does in a more equal society that takes better care of its unwell and poor.

What is interesting is that this was true centuries ago too. Life as a noble in the middle ages was stressful as hell and you couldn't even decide on your own lovelife. Read Seneca and the first thing he writes is that Augustus (whom he knew personally) was constantly complaining about his busy life and dreaming of a retirement that never arrived.

You or the farmer you buy food from competes for farmland with Bil Gates. You or the one providing your house builder with wood competes for lumber forest with Alex Karp.

The list goes on and on.

It appears trough technological innovation the standards of life rise in many ways but trough innequality it can affect the standards/ affordability of our basic needs.

The point should be to raise the floor, not put in place a ceiling.

Because most people are (IMO wrongfully) jealous of the rich. They have a problem with the rich even if it's legitimately earned wealth.

More money doesn't create more things to buy or more people making things, its just means more money competing for the same things to buy. Other people having more does diminish your share, of the cake. Yes, we can make the cake larger, but the best way to do that is for more people to get more opportunity to fulfil their potential, by getting a reasonable share to do so.

Who do you want to educate from that position? You or others?

> “What we think” and “Ideal”

> In 2011, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth was split between the five fifths of households, and how they would ideally split it. The Companion spreads those five shares across all 100 percentiles of the 2026 wealth total in a smooth curve (Appendix 3). Many different curves fit five numbers, so these two shapes are only illustrations. The actual bars come from percentile-level data. These two curves do not.

Not even ‘to have’, just ‘to be worth, if all of their shares could be sold at the price of the recent ones’. It’s a number only loosely (albeit obviously positively) correlated with actual spending power.

The whole point is that he shouldn't be able to exert autocratic control over large swathes of the economy and control that many people's lives.

It’s more hidden now. We all have rights and freedoms and whatnot. But there are still people who “own stuff”, and people who don’t. With shades of gray in between those two extremes. It’s good to be cognizant of the system you inhabit relative to what has existed throughout history so you can make good decisions and position yourself accordingly.

> his companies are paying people and other companies that pay people

Yes, his companies, not him. He's not doing much, except distracting part of his workforce to work on vanity projects such as flying cars or mile-long vaccuum tubes, or spending some of his vast wealth to buy politicians that will further the cause of wealth inequality. Get rid of him, and the system works much better for everyone. Him and others like him.

   1) Endowments, Trusts, and nonprofits
   2) The Estate Tax

It seems to obvious to me, like just start it at something like $5M. Nobody will be affected who can't afford it. It's like they're trying to implement it in a way that makes people hate it.

Top salary earners, who do manage to save somewhat for retirement end up getting punished by these wealth taxes as well, especially since, generally, you need money in order to be able to move money around, in order to be able to save money on these sorts of taxes.

Increase wages.

It'd be interesting to do the same graph by real consumption. I bet it'd be much more equal - most of the wealth is tied up in systems that keep the country ticking over and are only providing paper benefits to the owner. Which is why I say "transparency" - once you track what happens in real terms, "taxing the rich" almost certainly becomes "everyone ends up with less". If you take real resources away from the person who owns the McDonald's ice cream machine in real terms I have a hard time seeing how it won't come out of the lifestyle of the dude buying icecream. The person getting the money wasn't consuming anything real.

So let's say you start taxing the ultra-wealthy based on their assets. They then have the option of:

1) Make the company pay out dividends, so that owners can afford to pay their wealth tax. Not ideal, because what happens during bad years where there's no dividends to be paid out? Or if companies want to re-invest in the company?

2) Sell stocks. Again, not ideal. This would mean that you lose some ownership year by year.

3) Take up personal loans to cover taxes.

etc.

Note, I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't do anything. But this is just the consequence of such assets (stocks) being the dominant asset among the wealthy.

Why couldn't there a wealth ceiling? Let's take $1B per person, everything above that is taxed at 100%. Would it destroy the capitalist dream and people would lose motivation to grow their wealth, or would it stimulate cooperation and wealth distribution?

You also have this with houses in California (and more and more, the entire country) - a family in a house that they pay $x per month on is not likely to really feel different if you tell them the house is worth $250k or $500k or $5m - because the price will likely be "in line" with those around them and so actually getting access to the "wealth" is difficult - the only real way is to move far away.

I feel a big part of the problem is we've made the world great for those who know how to navigate it, but horrible for those who don't (or can't). If you are disciplined from the beginning, always save 10% of what you make into retirement 410(k)s, 10% into rainy-day funds, spend less than 30% on housing, you're going to do quite well - but that's a small portion. Seventy years ago you could be a near literal moron, work at the factory, and live a good life - because the company handled your pension and healthcare without asking you to make decisions that frankly most people aren't capable of making - and it was difficult to leverage yourself to death.

Most people don't give a shit about wealth inequality if they can live a good if humble life without undue stress.

Elon Musk existing doesn't bother me as long as I can provide for my family and feel I'm getting a "decent deal". But if I'm overworked, underpaid, drowning in debt, and prices are rising, his existence is going to be a lot more annoying.

(One of the problems of publicly-traded companies is manager's capitalism - https://ia601506.us.archive.org/26/items/bogle-managerial-ca... - both really come down to nobody actually owning something in the meaning of taking responsibility to the thing, because ownership is so diluted it basically has no meaning.)

Think again. The demand from rich to park wealth in X, Y, Z makes prices go up. Just imagine that the RAM prices fueled by AI spending is a housing market. More money rich have, less affordable the life for the rest is.

And don't forget that speed of their wealth growth is way faster than anyone who sells their labour.

Ah. And we did not even talk about "hidden" wealth thingy... All these numbers are official ones.

It's not "poorer society with fewer inequalities." That's what they always say. It's never that. A society is not "richer" because the amount of financially backed power is one concentrated set of hands.

That's it. That's the tweet.

They're not "value creators". They're human beings that were given immense opportunities, disproportionately available avenues of luck, and happened to be able to find people to do their labor for them on the backs of the needs of the world.

What the ever living hell do you think the "90% of people" are doing? They're feeding each other and selling houses to each other and stocking shelves for each other because they have to because their labor and money is being stolen from them by this stupid abstraction that they are are "value creators".

Ugh.

Isn't it weird that the people that don't create value are also the people with all the money, though?