A New Year's Resolution for the Rich | Hacker News Reader

A New Year's Resolution for the Rich

huffingtonpost.com

16 pointsasnyder29 comments

Unfortunately, this type of philosophy will do further damage to the country. If any rich person wants to donate his/her wealth, he/she is free and should be free to do so. This would be an admirable act, especially if the person takes great care how the money is invested (Steve Jobs is right in saying that it is harder to give a dollar away than to make one). But to call for legislation that mandates further and deeper redistribution of wealth (i.e. forcefully taking from someone to give to another), or to imply that spending your wealth instead of giving it away is immoral, is, in itself, unethical.

The problems with education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas that Mr. Harris bemoans, have most likely arisen due to legislation that distorted the real economic incentives of the people using these markets. Pouring other people's money into these disfunctional areas would achieve nothing more than a short-lived alleviation of the symptom. The root cause will remain intact.

"Make college free for anyone who can't afford it," Mr. Harris calls. Well, someone has to pay (for teachers, facilities, equipment, etc.). Who will do that? The rich? What if they don't want to? Should we grab a gun and go to their homes to take their money away? Or should we revile them in blogs and newspapers? Why do most people forget that it is precisely the rich (except those who amassed their wealth in non-free markets, distorted by government intervention), who, by virtue of their ability to build businesses or to create value for their employers, have already created the most wealth for others as well? Any reliable machine we use, any good service we enjoy was created by able people, and their wealth is miniscule in comparison with the benefit they have brought to others as a by-product of their effort. To deny such people the freedom to use their wealth as they please will likely kill their incentive to be productive.

To tackle another of Mr. Harris' points - it is obvious that chance is involved in success. However, it is illogical and unethical to claim that since chance played a role in someone's success, that person is obliged to give away part of his/her wealth to another person, who has nothing to do with the life and work of the former. Chance does not give anyone the right to claim a portion of another person's wealth.

The solution is not in more aggressive income transfer. It is in freeing markets and letting people do the best for themselves.

The problem with leftists (which I'm choosing to define as "to the left of normal liberals) is they become obsessed with money.

Even when they know money is an ineffective tool to solve the problem. Take education. Someone who lives and breathes politics like Sam Harris absolutely must know we're 4th in per pupil education and that our University system is absolutely broken. Yet what does he suggest as a solution...

"there is no question that a true breakthrough in education will require an immense investment of further resources. Here's an expensive place to start: make college free for anyone who can't afford it."

Also his obsession with the rich blinds him to the contradictions in his own arguments. For example he says...

"Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America."

But then ends the article like this...

"Let Gates and Buffett convene a team of brilliant people to lay out the priorities. But again, we should remember that they could scarcely fail to improve our situation. Simply repaving our roads, the dilapidation of which causes $54 billion in damage to our cars every year, would be better than doing nothing."

Well...if that's the case why doesn't he go out and hire someone to repair his local roads and donate their labor to the city? It's not that expensive to fix a pot hole or two

Harris wants to do more than fix potholes, if he can. He wants a few smart, rich, and reasonably sincere people like Gates and Buffet to come up with a plan for him to do a lot of good with his money. When he says that repaving roads would be better than doing nothing, he's just saying that a good plan executed now will be better than a perfect plan executed never.

The problem with leftists (which I'm choosing to define as "to the left of normal liberals) is they become obsessed with money.

"Everybody loves money. That's why they call it money."

Hmmm, well, the one commodity that never seems to be in short supply is people who think it's their duty to tell other people how the fruits of their labors should be spent.

Incidentally, the author confuses tax rate with tax receipts. The rich in 1950 had a much higher rate, but they paid no more taxes than the rich of today. The whole point of the tax changes in 1996 was to eliminate all the loopholes and gamesmanship that was going on in the tax code and make rates more reflective of reality.

I, too, am irritated by people who advocate raising taxes for (or greater charity in) every bracket above their own. But Harris isn't doing that. He's asking the two former richest people in the world to tell him how to spend the fruits of his own labors.

But beyond that, Harris points out that a significant fraction of your "fruits" are not of your labors but of your favorable circumstances. He's telling you that you ought to share some of the fruits of your good fortune.

Even if you deny the role of chance in your financial success, how you spend your money has strong ethical implications. If other people believe I'm acting unethically in some way, I do consider it their duty to tell me.

>But beyond that, Harris points out that a significant fraction of your "fruits" are not of your labors but of your favorable circumstances. He's telling you that you ought to share some of the fruits of your good fortune.

I know that's a common perception on the left, but I don't accept it. I don't know anyone super-wealthy, but the people I know who are at least mid-six-figures didn't get their through favorable circumstances.

Has Gates's influence in primary education been helpful? That is not clear to me.

"throughout the 1950's . . . the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent"

This statement's math is inaccurate.

In the "mid 50s" there were many more brackets, and in fact the 90% rate was for incomes in the 2m/yr+ range adjusted for inflation.

A more fair comparison is to look at today's top rate bracket which is anything above $373,650.

In 1955 that was ~$47,500 inflation adjusted, and the marginal tax rate for that bracket was 72%.

Not arguing the point that a greater share of the top earners INCOME went to taxes back in the day, just that 90% is not an accurate representation of the top, or wealthy class tax.

Beyond that what bugs me about this line is that he uses it as proof that taxes are lower today than they have been in the past, when in fact that is not accurate.

Trends in state taxes, capital gains, property taxes (and values), and sales taxes add to the burden today at every level, so marginal tax is not the best measure.

A better measure is total tax revenue against GPD which, shown below, illustrates that the percentage of tax revenue has GROWN since the 1950s:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=195...

and the history of marginal tax rates:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_histo...

Another thing worth comparing is the number of tax brackets. Currently, tax law considers someone making 400k/y to be the same as someone making 5m/y (or more), when in reality those are completely different leagues.

Showing that tax revenue has grown doesn't say anything about the distribution of that burden which i would find more interesting.

Your wish is my command:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

and

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/fed-tax-burden-cbo.php

From these ref's, it's clear to see that the Federal tax code hardly put a damper on the average income of the top 1%, 5% and 10% - their average income rose (the "Top 1%" doubled!) from 1977 to 1995. Every household _not_ in the "Highest 20%" quintile, on the other hand, pretty much held steady (or decreased slightly).

Perhaps the reason that "fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes" is that their incomes are so low. In any case, the percentage of "income tax burden" borne by the "Top" (1%/5%/10%) will of course rise as their incomes rise at a rate which outpaces everybody's below.

it's also important to remember that that top 1% use far more government services than the rest of us.

I think this article contains pure wisdom. I'm getting hints that many people are starting see this as well. If you have a runaway success, then you're in a position to make that success into something really meaningful, not just for you, but for so many other people, and that, in turn, I think you will find even more rewarding. If you don't know how to contribute, then help those that do.

Imagine all of the wealth in the world was redistributed so that everyone had exactly the same amount of money.

Those in poverty and the foolish would spend their money on expensive consumer items and long vacations that produce no income later, falling back into poverty because they can't/wont work.

The moderately intelligent would continue to manage money reasonably well and would spend their money conservatively until various circumstances whittled down what they had until they had to go back to work to stay afloat.

The rich (those evil bastards) would be clever and would save their money, work hard although they already had pleanty of money, invest it well, take risks, employ others and acquire money from the other two groups.

In a matter of 5 to 10 years, the poor, middle class and rich will shuffle themselves back to their respective places. And you will have to redistribute wealth again so that things will "be fair".

Yes, the world is fair and just and everyone deserves to be where they are today. This is why our society operates according to a caste system, and we should preserve it whenever possible.

Ergo the rich deserve to stay rich in perpetuity without any effort or contribution to society on their part. They should be able to set aside a pile of cash and reap the capital gains forever, with only a 15% tax rate on that income.

It is the natural order.

Edit add: In addition to the aforementioned caste reference, I'm seeing a lot of parallels to feudalism here.

Rich people often lose their money due to poor mismanagement. IE, the son would squander the fortune of his father.

Rich people who have manage their wealth properly should deserve to keep it. It's not like the companies that they invest in are going to last forever.

Yes, their deftness at not being idiots with their money should be rewarded indefinitely, since it is such a huge contribution to our society.

(mostly unrelated: check out index funds, money management is only made to look complicated to benefit brokers/advisors paid on commission)

I find it important to know that people can't take my income just because I am rich or I am perceived to not be a valuable contributor to society.

I am not at all rich, but I am a rather spoiled college student funded by taxpayer money in the form of scholarship. (though I actually work for it in the form of grades...but it's still not my money)

Even so, I don't want loophole that can be used to take people's property away from them.

Once you take property from the rich, you could conceivably begin to take away property from the middle class, and then classes under that until all property are owned by people in power.

The rule of law is a very important concept. It's something that I wouldn't want to violate to right perceived unfairness.

You're mixing up property rights (what you already have) with income tax brackets (what you're getting).

Money are your property. Therefore taxation(taking money by coercion) is a form of property right violation.

The Constitution also have another loophole that allow the government to take property for "just compensation".

Intellectual property right also violate property right.

People do indeed make exceptions. Some are big, and some are small. They just think they are justified.

The more exceptions there are, the more people are at liberty to make new exceptions for property right.

The fools do not exist on their own in some sort of vacuum.

If society is showing symptoms of rot and great inequality then it is a statement about the society as a whole. It is everyone's shared failure.

Despite how things may seem, it is not at all necessary to live in the kind of society that we live in now. There is a difference between squandered opportunity and opportunity that was never there in the first place.

All children in America should have the same opportunity.

Every child in America has the opportunity to become, if not rich, comfortable. Why do you see the accumulation of wealth as a problem?

> "Every child in America has the opportunity to become, if not rich, comfortable"

I object vehemently to this statement. It simply isn't true beyond a small minority of the population.

Immigrants? Urban poor? Black communities? Other marginalized demographics?

The American dream is founded upon the basic assumption that the above statement is true. With this assumption, the American dream becomes a tale of industriousness and responsibility. Without it, the American dream is about being set up to fail while under a thin veneer of equality.

The disparity in the level of education amongst Americans is shocking. While a public school in a wealthy neighborhood may produce perfectly competent students, poor neighborhoods show a very different tale. The reasons are as numerous as they are controversial - but one thing is clear, if you wind up as a child in one of these schools, your odds sink through the floor, regardless of how hard you work (if you have indeed been taught that hard work is useful, or even how to work hard, or your community won't punish you for working hard in school, or your home life is stable enough to make academic achievement possible... etc etc).

I was incredibly lucky to have gone through a competent public school system in an area of relative wealth - but I won't let my experience cloud the knowledge that in an astonishingly large segment of the population things are not at all so rosy.

To be clear, this isn't to assign blame, but rather a statement that "every child has the chance to succeed" is not at all true.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think a crappy public school system is an impediment to modest success - you'll never be the CEO of GM, but you can raise a family in a decent neighborhood through your own efforts.

What a load of socialist bullshit.

If I had a down vote, your remark, sir, I would gladly send in to oblivion.

You can downvote, your you can try to argue how -- even though my comment was cursory -- I am incorrect. But I don't think you will, because you know I'm right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com