Hacker News Reader

Comment by marssaxman | Hacker News Reader

But of course an institute called the "American Institute for Economic Research" is going to say that; from the about page, they believe in "the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government, and sound money."

View on HN

> They believe in "the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government, and sound money."

And there's nothing wrong with that. It's pretty good that they stated their beliefs upfront, so at least we can see where the bias (if any) comes from.

They sound like a monstrous bunch of people. /s

An important skill is reading between the lines, and recognizing libertarian dog whistles. Freedom to them = freedom from government regulating business. Freedom to me = freedom from worrying about businesses poisoning me and my family.

Equating "Wealth taxes are counterproductive" to "Let's posison people" is a quite a leap. It's less reading between the lines and more deranged hallucination.

Do you not believe in the value of those things?

Separately, every institute or person that has published anything has an agenda; so the fact that this particular institute has a mission that you perceive to align with their words doesn't mean that their words are wrong. It is by definition an ad hominem fallacy.

I'd love to have the same personal freedom as a billionaire. If a wealth tax is a means to accomplish that, then I'm willing to accept it.

I'd love to be as tall and athletic as an NBA player. Perhaps a height tax is in order to more fairly redistribute people along the vertical dimension.

Your snarky comment fails given that height is non-transferable whereas money is? Hair transplant would be a funnier comment. Alas.

I'll own the snark (and point out that height is only non-transferable if you aren't trying hard enough, a la Harrison Bergeron), but my point stands. Life is full of situations where someone has it better off than someone else in whatever dimension you care to look at. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome, which is what GP seemed to suggest in coveting the personal freedoms of a billionaire.

Do you think the child of a poor single mother and the child of a billionaire have equality of opportunity?

Substantially equal in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? In equality before the law? In being judged not for the color of their skin, but the content of their character? Yes, and we should strive to make that even more so. Perfectly equal in all respects, including access to resources? Obviously not. If you define equality of opportunity as how many horseback riding lessons and unpaid internships a child is put through, then no, there is no such equality found in America or anywhere else in the world. Even the most egalitarian nations of the world in Scandinavia (the subject of this thread to begin with) have rich people and poor people.

A child of a poor single mother, Barack Obama, made his way to the highest office of the land (not to mention significant personal wealth), whereas a child of a billionaire, John du Pont, died in prison as a convicted murderer. Both had equal opportunities to make something of themselves in a cultural, legal, and economic framework that values the individual.

In this land of equality of opportunity, 93% of people born to parents in the bottom quintile of incomes ended up earning more than their parents, with 57% ending up in a higher quintile; and a full 60% of people born to parents in the top quintile of incomes ended up in a lower quintile[0].

Meanwhile, in Norway, famed for its egalitarian attitudes and highly redistributive policies, a higher percentage were able to climb out of the bottom quintile, but a similar percentage held on to their parents' top-quintile ranking[1]. The country has more billionaires per capita than the US, and still has a legally separate and privileged group of people, the monarchy, who by definition are unequal from the rest of the populace; and it's only a few generations removed from having legal privileges for the aristocracy.

[0]: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_econ...

Don't you think an unpaid internship is an opportunity to learn and network; an opportunity inaccessible to those of lesser means?

> I believe in equality of opportunity

If this is to be achieved it is going to require a lot of money.

We are a long way from having a child growing up in social housing sharing the same opportunities as a billionaires child.

I pointed out the authorship because this article is not actually the piece of news reporting it appears to be; it does not have anything useful to tell us about whether "Norway's wealth tax is backfiring", because it comes from an author whose ideological perspective presumes that it must. Perhaps the policy is a failure, perhaps it is not; we will need to look elsewhere to find out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com