Ask HN: Do wealthy Americans discuss inequality to make themselves feel better? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do wealthy Americans discuss inequality to make themselves feel better?

16 pointstdevito8 comments

My social circle mostly consists of affluent, upper middle class individuals with comfortable incomes. I can't speak for the 1%, but for my friends and colleagues from the 10%, discussing income inequality has become a sort of social signal to show that you yourself are too smart to be poor, but you still feel bad for all the unfortunate people that were left behind by capitalism. Does discussing inequality so much become a self fulfilling prophecy for the low-income strata? Does it simply benefit the current winners of the status quo?

View on HN

I guess it depends on the circle of friends/coworkers as well as location. I hardly hear anyone talk about inequality in my circles. Many would be considered top 10%, but most would at least be top 25%.

On the national level, many people in high cost of living areas may be in the top 10%, but may not feel as blessed because of the high cost of living. For example, you may be making $300k per year in a dual income family in SF, but an average house might cost $750k.

In my opinion, if one complains about something multiple times, but does not do anything to fix the issue, then that is hypocrisy.

This is a great question.

So just because your good at gaming the system yourself doesn't preclude understanding its unfair, having empathy towards those less fortunate and being keen to see it changed. I think most people in the fit in this box. Regardless if discussing it is conscious or unconscious signalling, it reflects well on the group.

But that is separate to the fact of whether lip service is damaging or not. And indeed it could be. It can allow you to feel your part of the solution whereas in fact you may be inadvertently perpetuating the problem by being conservative in the face of solutions perceived as radical or detrimental to your group.

As an anecdote, I used to work in a video shop / net cafe. It was in a semi-gentrified area, very low income mixed with high-income bohemian style folks. Our manager used to let neighbourhood kids in to play with the computers and run around. Better than running around on the streets. Of course, they were noisy and disturbed other customers. One complaint was "Look i love what your doing here but honestly I come here to work on the computers and I just cant if its like this". Completely fair yes, but also detrimental.

Its genuinely hard to understand the circumstances of someone in a completely different socio-economic group to you. Sometimes its better to just get out of the way if you cant make the effort. Or, make the effort to understand and then support someone who is driving real change, while realising it may be uncomfortable to you and your group. And with inequality, the solution should by definition feel uncomfortable, after all its your resources that are being redistributed.

Pretty much, given very little or almost rarely does it result since any outcomes. At best there might be some action on the discussing people’s part. But outcomes realized - zero. In a sad way I feel we deserve what we have coming.

I would highly highly recommend reading Jason Hickels book. If you don’t have time Listen to his talks.

Book: https://g.co/kgs/sy7sXx Talks: Just YouTube it.

If wealthy people really, I do mean REALLY, took this conversation seriously they would advocate for tax reform, otherwise its simply bullshit posturing.

Things like a graduated income tax with numerous exceptions and trivial capital gains taxes have proven ineffective. On the national level I would instead like to see income taxes replaced by a property tax and a 100% estate tax above $10 million.

Property taxes have issues too. Many seniors who have minimal income are not able to pay their property taxes and lose their homes.

It's more logical to tax income (especially capital gains) since you know the people have the money since they just made it. Expecting people who made their money on a previous income tax system who are now on limited income to pay a property based tax is, frankly, moronic.

A one-time wealth tax could make sense to make up for the years of 'unfair' compounding.

Property taxes work well in Texas. Everybody who owns property pays property taxes including the elderly. I don’t ever hear of the elderly disproportionately losing their houses here. There is no state income tax though.

Property taxes are one of the greatest equalizers. Poor people don’t own property and thus do not pay that tax. Wealthy people pay far more in taxes to live in a giant mansion than they do for the mansion itself. That $15-60k per month in property taxes really adds up over time.

We have property taxes in PA too. Even with reduced payments for seniors, it still results in people losing their homes.

You are incorrect about poor people not paying the tax. They live somewhere, even if that somewhere is owned by another person. For example, if you are renting, your rent payment is covering the tax for the owner.

That $15-60k per month might add up over time, but I doubt it would do anything to fix inequality, especially since it is regressive and applies to everyone. People with sizable properties who are paying that much probably have access to a resource which they sell, like grazing, oil, or water. The normal people paying the tax at $3-10k per year (possibly through rent payments) are going to see it add up too, probably in a more impactful way. I say this because it will impact their ability to raise and preserve capital, especially since they implicitly own less capital in real estate and wouldn't have access to resources to lease. The only benefit is that you could game the system and live in a tiny property to avoid paying much tax while making a lot of money, but that's only a couple percent difference in the states that have income taxes anyways.

> [F]or my friends and colleagues from the 10%, discussing income inequality has become a sort of social signal to show that you yourself are too smart to be poor, but you still feel bad for all the unfortunate people that were left behind by capitalism.

> Does discussing inequality so much become a self fulfilling prophecy for the low-income strata? Does it simply benefit the current winners of the status quo?

I suppose it depends on whether the discussion stops at the "Oh Noes" level, or if it continues to discussing how the 10% (or the 1%, for that matter) gets co-opted by the 0.01%, and on to various proposed remedies[0], and then on to more explicitly political activities such as support (in whatever form) for specific policies, organizations, and candidates.

[0] Campaign finance reform is probably the ur-remedy that enables most others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com