Wealth inequality risks triggering 'societal collapse' within next decade | Hacker News Reader

Wealth inequality risks triggering 'societal collapse' within next decade

kcl.ac.uk

24 pointsrntn20 comments

So we’re sol? Government’s aren’t going to start properly taxing the wealthy.

I just wish to remind everyone that there is a lot more of us than there is of them.

But who's "us", and who is "them"? Could it be a matter of perspective? Would it surprise you to discover that you're someone else's "them"?

Exactly. People usually think of “them” as the very wealthy, but they don’t even realize that earning just a little bit over $40.000/year makes you belong to the top 10% of the world measured by wealth. Earning $60.000/year takes you to the top 5%. Chances are that “you” (average reader of HN) belong to the “them” you critique so much.

https://wid.world/income-comparator/

I'd bet the majority people reading Hacker News are the "them" by most measures.

sorry for late comment, but the problem is clearer to me when considering it as resource control, rather than 'wealth'. Earning $60k gives you control of barely nothing. It would take 10's of millions of dollars just to have any effect on a small US city. It's a football field with 9995 people stuffed in an endzone and 5 people controlling the rest of the field.

"Them" are the rich and we are the rest.

Where do we draw the line? How about those of use who work to earn a living versus those who make money because they own a lot rather than because they work for it.

Of course, this does not include those who have worked all their life and have retired to live off their accumulated funds.

>So we’re sol?

According to the estimates, it's only a risk within the next 10 years.

Apparently more data needs to come in before there's no longer any risk, but a certainty within a reasonably understandable timeframe instead.

Taxing the rich 1.wont happen and 2. wont solve it.

Taxes are for the middle class to keep them working. They are not there to pay for stuff that we all use and share.

If they were there to pay for stuff that we share they would be voluntary to pay based on wether or not you want to participate in the shared thing.

Taxes are not optional, for the middle class, not even in the "I'm going to live by myself in the woods kind of way".

Taxes don't exist for the wealthy.

This is by design, it will not change, do not believe politicians who say that they will.

(For the US, Idk about other countries)

Claiming that increased taxation leads to increased work directly contradicts several findings in the field of economics.

Care for a link? I don't see how taking money from people could possibly make them work less.

I thought this was a pretty good discussion about this: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/38132/why-is-it...

Yeah I get what they are saying, but if anything that supports my argument. Wealthy people might work less when taxes go up, but middle class people have to work more. Poor people might work less because of benefits, but overall the people who are working are working harder to support the shenanigans of everyone else.

Did anyone read the article?

So concludes the "Fairness Foundation", no doubt completely objective on this subject.

Isn't this literally ad hom? Not one substantive rebuttal of the lines of reasoning, just rejection because of one source. But that's not the only source.

It's from an interdisciplinary study group, including King's college department of war studies. It's about the social cohesion risks implicit in the hollowing out of society. I'm less inclined to disbelieve it.

I mean, do you seriously think the "Fairness Foundation" is going to come to any other conclusion? I think we can avoid wasting our time on this.

Without reading it you cannot assert at all if their bias is unfounded. Their naming and mission shouldn't detract from at least a basic analysis of what's said.

I guess Byung-Chul Han is right about how digital/online discourse being just a swarm of shitstorming by anonymous narcissists, you showcased how without even a cursory look you let your reactive side out without even a question of how this behaviour doesn't fit the space. You just wanted to shout, and shout you did...

> Without reading it you cannot assert at all if their bias is unfounded.

You're simply wrong about that. I can assert it based on a heuristic, one that has significant predictive power in my experience.

As I expected this exchange would end with a thought-terminating cliché. Sad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com