I'll say this: Billionaires do not have infinite cosmic power. If they, and they alone, achieved indefinite longevity then we could start to talk about this, but they're no demiurges or immortals. Even with some extra tech, the heat death of the universe awaits them eventually. Plus I have yet to see a convincing proof for the non-existence of God, so there's that too, but HN isn't the place for religious discussion.
That said, I can't believe what we're letting them get away with. This is ridiculous. They don't pay taxes until they sell their shares, so they just make their interests into business divisions. Interested in space exploration? Make a rocket division of the company! Hire people around the world without ever paying into their education systems or infrastructure!
If there weren't so many arms races in the economy then it wouldn't really matter how much wealth the individuals at the top accrue, but there are and the productivity gains from all the technology advancement over the past 70 years are consolidating in the hands of the very few and the same very few are using wealth to shape media narratives and political policy via lobbying.
I'm not against inequality, I'm against the ever-more-expensive homes, healthcare, and tuition. Some billionaires fund important, life saving work, but so many don't and we don't have accept the system as it is. For example, we could force them to pay taxes on their capital gains before they sell if the current market value is more than 10x what they acquired them at. We could ensure that capital gains taxes were similar to income taxes for founders to stop the problem of a founder's income being mostly capital appreciation.
> They don't pay taxes until they sell their shares, so they just make their interests into business divisions. Interested in space exploration? Make a rocket division of the company! Hire people around the world without ever paying into their education systems or infrastructure!
It’s worth noting that this is intentional, at least in the U.S. The corporate tax system is specifically designed so that companies have a financial incentive to create jobs and hire people. That’s why companies pay taxes on income and not revenue.
The idea is that it is better for society to run corporate revenue through employee income and then into tax revenue, than directly into tax revenue from the corporate coffers. When people have jobs and income, they are invested in a stable society. When they pay taxes, they are invested in participatory democracy.
A society in which companies directly pay most tax revenue is a world in which it is even easier (than it is now) for a few corporate and political leaders to team up in paternalistic abuse of the populace. And when people own little, they have little to lose, and have no reason to prefer a stable society. History is clear on this matter.
The fundamental issue today is share of income. Raising taxes does not fix that because increased taxes do not become increased income for employees. Other policy solutions need to be found that change the balance of income between owners and employees.
The article cites the high income of athletes like Lebron James and Clayton Kershaw. The reason individual professional athletes make so much income is that they are part of collective bargaining agreements that reserve a certain percentage of business revenue for their salary. We’re taught to think of lazy Teamsters when we hear the word “union,” not Lebron James and Clayton Kershaw.
It’s one possible solution; there may be others, like pay ratio limits, mandatory salary disclosure, or greater incentives for employee training programs.
> I can't believe what we're letting them get away with.
If you consider that billionaires only personally consume a sliver of their net worth, what are they actually getting away with?
For example, say a billionaire consumes $100K worth of food, $20K worth of gasoline and jet fuel, and $1m of clothing, entertainment, baubles, prostitution and medical services per year. What happens to the rest of her wealth?
It's tied up in investments:
$500m in shares of company X
$100m in shares of company Y
$100m in a mutual funds
$100m in real estate (houses and land for personal use)
Not OP but I think that most people don’t have any issue with this what so ever. What people do have a problem with though is them skirting tax laws with hacks, loopholes, regulatory capture, and controlling the conservation propping themselves up as economic Jesus’es. Of of late a decent majority is starting to notice that there wage has been stagnated but that billionaires assets seem to grow irregardless of market trends or what the economy is doing.
Most people I think are fine with their existence and good for them for doing good at the business game but theyre only one facet of of the economy, and while they’re doing great everyone else arguably isn’t getting better
1. If I were to lend you the deluxe magic wand, what changes would you decree that would cause everyone else to get better?
Now let's quantify the effect of those changes.
2. If instead of the billionaires getting richer next year, rather, because of your changes, the delta of their projected wealth increase goes to everybody else, how much better off would that make the average person?
The average person isn't necessarily the problem. Start with the people who benefit the most from the least help. Steady access to decent food, clean water, safe non-toxic housing, and preventative healthcare. Is that so much to ask for?
You tell me. You've got the deluxe magic wand and you can do whatever you like. What would you do in order to change society for the better to achieve the outcome you've described?
The first objection is that the system allows them to marshal massive amounts of resources to achieve their objectives without support the very infrastructure that they rely on to acquire ever increasing control of resources.
The second objection is that they've lobbied for a system that benefits them. Do we really think of adding years to copyright is something that actually benefits everyday people? No. Of course not. But the wealthy pressure the politicians and the politicians cave and most of the public is too busy to understand or fight it.
The third objection is that they drive up costs for others for areas of the economy that are naturally limited. The larger their house and plot, the fewer people can live there, the more they drive up prices for land. They buy multiple homes. The best lakes and groups of normal people can't compete. In basically any market where there is an arms race the ever increasing economic disparity is making the day-to-day reality of the poor worse. Automation has helped bring the cost of things down, but in so many areas it's a hollower copy of what it used to be. People used to bake bread at home all across Canada. Now, it's wonderbread for the poor. To an economists spreadsheet things look great, but there's a humanness that is getting pushed out of interactions.
Imagine this continuing on and on, as technology continues to ever centralize returns. We're going to start having trillionaires soon. Right now the word is marked as incorrect by my spellchecker, but once it hits the news there's going to be the new bar people hit. A new top class.
There should be wealth limit. Or very high wealth taxes after, say, $100m. It doesn't make sense for such a small percent of people to own such a large percent of our society.
No worries. It's interesting that some people have, because I haven't expressed an opinion in favour or against billionaires. I've just asked for opinions and thoughts.
I'll say this: Billionaires do not have infinite cosmic power. If they, and they alone, achieved indefinite longevity then we could start to talk about this, but they're no demiurges or immortals. Even with some extra tech, the heat death of the universe awaits them eventually. Plus I have yet to see a convincing proof for the non-existence of God, so there's that too, but HN isn't the place for religious discussion.
That said, I can't believe what we're letting them get away with. This is ridiculous. They don't pay taxes until they sell their shares, so they just make their interests into business divisions. Interested in space exploration? Make a rocket division of the company! Hire people around the world without ever paying into their education systems or infrastructure!
If there weren't so many arms races in the economy then it wouldn't really matter how much wealth the individuals at the top accrue, but there are and the productivity gains from all the technology advancement over the past 70 years are consolidating in the hands of the very few and the same very few are using wealth to shape media narratives and political policy via lobbying.
I'm not against inequality, I'm against the ever-more-expensive homes, healthcare, and tuition. Some billionaires fund important, life saving work, but so many don't and we don't have accept the system as it is. For example, we could force them to pay taxes on their capital gains before they sell if the current market value is more than 10x what they acquired them at. We could ensure that capital gains taxes were similar to income taxes for founders to stop the problem of a founder's income being mostly capital appreciation.