Hacker News

What is the point against wealth tax? That the rich will flee, leaving us.... better off in every possible way?? This is like that episode of futurama where fry befriends the parasites he found at a gas stop

>That the rich will flee, leaving us.... better off in every possible way??

Can you explain why would we be better off when the rich flee? I see this "we gonna be better off without them" sentiment quite often, but never an explanation how would we be better off? What metrics have you used?

[–] N_Lens 1 day ago

Either you buy into the rich as job creators (myth) or you see them as parasites extracting all spare capacity and wealth from society.

[–] Steltek 1 day ago

Wouldn't they retain a lot of ability to do that from abroad? A wealth tax targets wealth in your country. We've seen plenty of loopholes for foreign political influence lately and I don't think there are any laws against non-residents holding majority shares in US companies, right?

That's hardly a reason to not attempt to rein them in.

USSR had no rich and everyone one was poor (except for the party’s apparatus).

So, how would it work here? Why eliminating the rich (whatever is the definition) would achieve a different outcome than that of communist regimes of the past?

This doesn't even make sense. Poverty is a relative term. Poverty requires wealth.

Anyway what little meager juice that these ideological labels had after the cold war is now gone with china as king of the hill. We can all agree private investment = rapid growth, and state intervention both in terms of social safety nets and actively ensuring fair competition (where that is necessary—banking, anti-trust, food/med production, etc) = stabler economies (or we agreed on this for a few decades after the great depression anyway). It's what the point of the economy is—to serve the disproportionate interests of rich or the collective (one might even say... democratic) interests of people—where there remains substantive disagreement. I hope we can leave this farce behind that how we talk about ideology has any relation to how the terms were actually defined in lieu or acknowledging material reality for a change.

https://www.history.com/articles/kgb-soviet-russia-secret-po...

> This doesn't even make sense. Poverty is a relative term.

It makes perfect sense. Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west, didn’t have access to the same variety of food, cloth, etc.

I do remember all these things from my childhood, and my parents made more money than the average because they worked for the oil and gas industry that paid extra. So, when people are trying to sell me the whole “collectivism” and anti-rich sentiment, I am a bit wary because no one can explain how “this time” is going to be different — it seems none of the activists/advocates actually lived in such systems, so they have no clue. I lived the consequences, and I do not want it for myself or anyone else.

I would say the point of the economy is to ensure that both the rich get what they want, but also to ensure that others are not poor and left behind. This is not the case today, and thus a series of reforms is needed. But it’s doesn’t make a believer for the “let’s abolish the rich” thing.

[–] whoanoway 1 day ago

> Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west

Because of internal corruption and external embargoes and a government budget that could fund a global cold war.

> collectivism

What kind collectivism can happen when anyone can snitch on their neighbour over made up reasons?

Just don't do the above, and you're fine.

> Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west

Well that's because we're a bunch of greedy bitches who never learned how to play nice with the other kids—capitalism. It would take a hell of a lot more wealth generation for humanity to justify this kind of economic dysfunction.

[–] IAmBroom 1 day ago

Antibiotics don't cure cancer. That doesn't mean we shouldn't administer them where they are effective.

Also, you are strongly implying the USSR taxed the wealthy disproportionately. They did not, so your entire argument is silly.

> Also, you are strongly implying the USSR taxed the wealthy disproportionately. They did not, so your entire argument is silly.

They absolutely did. The tax was 100% and then camps for the whole family.

My argument is not silly, in fact I did not make any. I asked how exactly we are going to be better off without the rich, and what kind of metrics were used to make the analysis. So far there was no answer.

Saying someone’s argument is silly and then walking off is silly.

They won't flee. The tax would have to astronomical to offset the advantages of doing business in the US. If that wasn't true, they would have all disclaimed their US citizenship and moved to Monaco already.

This is not the question I asked. I asked how and why would it be better for the rest of us?

For the record, I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of taxation on the wealthy, but I want to understand why having no rich is better for everyone.

Extraordinary claims, etc

Fair, and I don't believe we'd be better off if they fled. We would be better off if they weren't astronomically wealthy. I don't have a specific number in mind, but "a billion-ish" feels like a reasonable upper bound on wealth.

I'd also note that I would prefer to adjust tax/accounting laws to prevent the accumulation in the first place, not just roll out a blanket "take everything over a billion-ish law" as that feels more like a band-aid than a fix.

> adjust tax/accounting laws to prevent the accumulation in the first place

Yes, I agree with this one. Some sort of reform on estate and inheritance is long overdue.

That, and something to "force" payment in cold-hard cash instead of stock.

[–] lovich 1 day ago

They’d stop meddling in elections for at least one notable illegal immigrant billionaire

Not only rich people affect outcomes of the elections or legislature, unions do as well.

For example, New York’s Health Act failed because teachers unions opposed it on the grounds of “protecting the hard fought contract benefits”. In other words, union leadership realized that with this bill becoming a law unions would be less needed, so they fought for their interests while disregarding interests of others.

So, unions should go as well?

[–] Tryk 1 day ago

Unions represent the interest of a large group of people, they arrive at policy through debate and consensus.

Allowing people to nominate representatives to argue policy is the foundation of representative democracy.

> Unions represent the interest of a large group of people, they arrive at policy through debate and consensus.

Well, in this case, how come preventing access to healthcare to NYS residents is in the interest of the teachers? And, why would teachers think that they are the only ones who deserve good health care?

Unless… the unions have no feedback mechanism to ensure that they operate the way you think they operate, and they do what any other politician does — they want to stay in power I exchange for keeping just enough of the voting base like you more than the next guy. So, in this case, it’s perfectly reasonable for a union leadership to fight this law — it simply a preservation of power thing.

[–] Tryk 1 day ago

>Well, in this case, how come preventing access to healthcare to NYS residents is in the interest of the teachers? And, why would teachers think that they are the only ones who deserve good health care?

I am not familiar with the particulars, but I am sure there is information published by the union explaining their position in more detail.

I reject your suggestion that I am ignorant how unions operate. I have been a member of a union for many years. Larger decisions are decided by voting.

Like democracy, unions are not perfect. But historically unions have been effective at negotiating rights for workers (weekends, 8hour workdays etc.)

I would argue they are one of the few ways labour has been able to impact policy and law.

[–] lovich 1 day ago

No, they are single individuals who have more speech than me via dollars. They are groups of people. I may have problems with particular unions or particular actions but they’re a million times better than a single illegal immigrant being able to manipulate politics on his own whims.

You have this view, and it’s your right.

I care about outcomes, and I do not give unions any more slack or good will just because they are “troops of people”. They do shitty things too, and the results are bad for everyone involved. So, what’s the difference? There is none.

[–] lovich 1 day ago

Yea, I actually believe a bunch of people agreeing with an action has a difference in quality vs one oligarch or king getting to unilaterally decide.

They may end up doing shitty things but the group has buy in from a lot more people than one asshole deciding how we get to live our life.

[–] etcetcetcetceta 1 day ago

Tax on wealth - or in reality tax on unrealised gains is absurd, it's a tax on a cat in a box.

Is it though? Those same unrealized gains are used by those same alleged paper-billionaires to borrow money and live lavish lifestyles ("Buy, Borrow, Die").

They literally get to eat their cake and have it too.

[–] etcetcetcetceta 1 day ago

this is principally why banking exists at all, farmers needed to borrow against a harvest that hadn't yet been planted.

I'd suggest some controls or limits to it, but the lenders assume the risk ( except for all the times the public has had to bail them out) and they're grown up corporations who can decide for themselves.

I should add, that the money they borrow does get taxed when it is spent on the indulgences you make reference to.

Yes, but it isn't taxed federally as income tax, which is the problem we're probably trying to solve.

IE, every dollar I earn gets taxed twice - as income, then as sales tax. Rich guy only pays the sales tax.

And there's a fundamental difference between "borrow to keep the business running smoothly" and "borrow to buy a mega-yacht". Legally, not so much, as you say, but hell's bells, the super yacht market really shouldn't exist.

[–] etcetcetcetceta 1 day ago

Counter point: the (super) yacht industry employs a huge number of skilled workers who take immense pride in their craft (pun intended).

Sure, and there's plenty of opportunity to build regular yachts (which are still massively expensive). When I say super-yacht, I mean the 100 meter monstrosities preferred by the likes of Bezos and Zuckerberg. I take no issue with the type of yacht owned by "mere millionaires".

[–] lucaspm98 1 day ago

Any normal person can implement the same strategy in any brokerage account.

Regardless, if that's the actual anti-social behavior we should change that tax treatment specifically, versus a broad paper wealth tax with unintended consequences.