Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aeolun | Hacker News Reader

I’m a firm believer in a maximum of like 50% tax on income. Anything more just feels like a punishment for working.

If you could push a button once an hour that gave $1,000 to you and $99,000 to the government you are saying you'd feel like you're being punished for pushing it?

Let's not pretend that billionares are working 1.44 million hours a week to earn 18000 times what the janitor earns working two jobs in an 80 hour week. The quality of a billionaires 'work' is different than 'real work' so what you feel intuitevely about work may not be a great touchstone for how billionaires should be taxed.

There is no button. That framing is dumb because it implies no risk and no alternative locations where capital can be applied with the same risk and lower taxation.

> alternative locations where capital can be applied with the same risk and lower taxation.

They are already doing that, so what would be the difference?

Anyone can push a button, not everyone can create a billion dollar company.

Absolutely.

Let's say I earn over the threshold, and I can now either choose to continue to try and innovate and add value to society, or retire to a private island and just become a carbon contributor, I mean, why work myself into the ground if I can no longer benefit?

Most people have assets not liquidity too, so it's like saying, if you own too much, you have to stop. Well, what if Elon stopped and we reverted back to dropping rockets into the ocean? What if Bill Gates stopped and never did any of the philanthropy that he does?

I feel like this is used by people as a cheap excuse for a problem they can't solve.

> What if Bill Gates stopped and never did any of the philanthropy that he does?

Not sure what your point is here--Bill Gates is not getting paid to do his philanthropy...he is in fact trying to give his money away. Are you arguing that it's a greater benefit to society for him to acquire his billions and then give some portion of it away after the fact?

It's an interesting thought experiment--how might the world be different had Gates's assets been capped at $1B back in 1987 or whenever, and whatever earnings he made been allocated to a social wealth fund?

I mean, why work myself into the ground if I can no longer benefit?

That's a good question for the current situation -- why does Bezos still go to work? Once you have $100B, what tangible benefit do you get from more? Surely he's not doing it for the money, another $1B, or even $100B isn't going to change his lifestyle.

The same thing can be said for my $100k. I hardly need more to live. Why am I striving for more?

It’s not like my increasing savings bring me any material benefit.

It may not change his lifestyle, but it’s still a motivating achievement.

If a world-class marathon runner is 4 minutes ahead in a race, and can see the finish line, do they start walking? Or do they try to push themselves even harder to see how much more they can win by?

People are competitive, and are always motivated by achieving “more”, even if it doesn’t change the outcome for them. Does society benefit by billionaires pushing for more? I’m not sure, but I don’t think that the answer is clearly “no”.

So then, just like a marathon, instead of a timeclock to beat, the government can have an agency that tracks lifetime wealthy -- then the wealthy can brag over who would have had the largest pot of gold if they didn't dispose of the money immediately for tax reasons.

Does society benefit by billionaires pushing for more? I’m not sure, but I don’t think that the answer is clearly “no”.

I think the correct question is "Is there a net benefit to society", not any benefit at all.

In the end it comes down to me feeling like I can achieve a larger positive effect for society by keeping my money.

Especially past 100M

I'm pretty sure bezos stopped going to work.

I'm not convinced that "make a lot of money" and "add value to society" are incredibly well correlated.

I'm not convinced that "increase government expenditure" and "add value to society" are correlated, at least not positively.

we can also flip a question: how do you prevent a scenario where bezos or musk achieve so much wealth that they can purchase everything? to own all corporations and if somebody will create a competitor that competitor gets destroyed by shady practices so it gets impossible to have free market?

These people don’t put the money in their mattresses, you know. They spend it or invest it, creating economic activity.

Your suggestion is to give it to the government, which will more wisely spend it?

I think not.

“There is only one way to kill capitalism – by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.” — Karl Marx

billionaires aren’t capitalism.

What is the goal of capitalism? Is it not: "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit." [1]

[1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.ht...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com