Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

> The Tax Justice Network’s review – co-published with Patriotic Millionaires UK and Tax Justice UK – of the Henley report finds that the number of millionaires claimed by Henley & Partners to be leaving countries in “exodus” in 2024 represented near-0% of those countries’ millionaire populations.3 For example, the 9500 millionaires widely reported to be leaving the UK in 2024 represented 0.3% of the UK’s 3.06 million millionaires.

From a quick search:

>> Patriotic Millionaires UK is a nonpartisan network of wealthy individuals in the UK who publicly advocate for higher taxes on the rich and progressive economic reform.

>> Tax Justice UK is a non-profit, politically non-aligned campaigning and advocacy organization working to ensure that everyone benefits from a fair and effective tax system. The group focuses on building a movement for progressive tax reform, pushing for policies that tax wealth and excessive corporate profits at higher rates in order to better fund public services and redistribute wealth

I'm sorry but if someone posts a study conducted by NRA on gun violence, most would view it with suspicion. I think we should probably view this study with suspicion as well given the groups that were conducting it.

It's absolutely true that we should consider the source for this and any other reviews / studies / news articles etc., and be aware of their likely position.

We should also recognize that, for all but the most mainstream possible questions or topics, most of the study is going to come from interest groups-- they're the ones who are interested enough to do the work to look at the data and publish their results!

If we dismiss reviews like this out-of-hand simply because they are created by an interest group, then we'll miss out on a lot of information and opportunity for reasonable discourse.

(Note that I'm not saying the parent comment is advocating this, but it did raise the point in my mind.)

Studies largely come from academia, and (in theory) would be/should be independent. Studies coming from authors with a bias or conflict of interest should be flagged, not dismissed, which appeared to be the intent of the parent.

>Studies largely come from academia

Source? I'd imagine for public policy think thanks and government agencies make up a significant chunk as well.

There are two types of study.

A peer reviewed study, with published data and methodology. (it might even be accurate, unless you're a sociologist)

then there is a "study" created by a think tank, PR firm pretending to be a think tank, or a dipshit company pushing something or other.

The latter a good for seeing which rich prick, or group of pricks has the time and money to push a specific agenda. and not much else.

I’d react the same way as I would to an NRA gun violence study: can we verify the results?

In this instance there are copious footnotes and citations of data backing up the argument. If they’re falsified, yes, we should disregard the study. But they don’t seem to be.

The review appears to be cited. If you suspect it, by all means, review it.

Also, the NRA has a long history of suppressing gun violence research in general (through their lobbying efforts of the CDC and NIH, the Dickey Amendment, etc.). This would contribute more to suspicion than anything else.

Perhaps rather than focusing on the speaker, you could focus on their arguments and tell us what's actually incorrect?

Because that wasn't their intent? Perhaps you should consider that calling out the potential bias of the authors has merit?

Sure! Here's a source from Adam Smith institute that shows UK millionaires / billionaires decreased during that time period and high taxes are partly to blame

https://www.adamsmith.org/millionaire-tracker2024

You can pretty much be assured of bias if the word “justice” appears in the name of an organization or project or whatever. It has been co-opted all over, in settings where the word doesn’t really even make sense. After all, the only just and fair outcome would be if everyone paid the same amount.

Speaking of - why don’t government services just charge transparent rates for the services they’re providing like any business? Everyone else figures out how to charge for a product or service. A lot of waste is normalized and hidden in the vague sums thrown at agencies, with no competition to drive prices down since it’s a government service. Taxpayers could get better outcomes by pushing for better governance instead of more unjust redistribution continually.

> why don’t government services just charge transparent rates for the services they’re providing like any business?

Donald Trump is already president of the US. You are not going to beat him at the "stupid questions about the government" game, so I would just sit back and let him show you how it's done.

Did you critique the Henley report too?

It was written by one guy in South Africa who didn’t really do any valid research

DYOR guy on the internet tells me something is bullshit. That's settled then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com