Hacker News Reader

Comment by nazgulnarsil | Hacker News Reader

demonizing the productive rich along with the hereditary wealth parasites is a fatal mistake for a civilization IMO.

There's a huge difference between the rich and high income earners. The rich/wealthy often favor higher taxes because their income is from tax-free bonds or from control of assets, where income is deferred and usually part of a one-time transaction, like sale of a company, where taxes can be avoided.

High-income earners, on the other hand, often have negative net worth (school and housing debt). The rich want high taxes on the high-income earners because they don't want the upstarts competing with them for control of assets...they want to make it harder for the next wave of entrepreneurs to build disruptive or competitive businesses.

It is ironic, but taxes on new capital formation directly benefit those who already have capital.

This is an astute and important point. I have always found it flawed that a middle-class American family making around $100K in income will pay more taxes than someone with $10M+ portfolio of municipal bonds.

With that said, I agree with Mark Cuban's philosophy here, and do not get personally upset with paying taxes.

I don't think the solution is to complain about taxes on high income earners. Rather, there just needs to be more pressure on instituting equivalent taxes for other forms of wealth generation (i.e. get rid of tax-free bonds).

if they pay taxes and buy goods and services, why should it matter if the wealth is self-made or inherited?

Most self-made rich people get there by (I'll bet you've heard this before...) making something people want. It's a rare buyer who buys something for $20 and values it at exactly $20 -- most buyers think it's worth a little more, or a lot more. That difference means that most purchases are not only beneficial to the maker/inventor (who is making money on the transaction), but also to the buyer (who believes their life will be better because of the transaction).

So, if you set everything else equal (purchase of goods and services, payment of taxes, etc.) the self-made rich are doing a lot more for others than the rich-by-inheritance.

You're telling me that the guy who founded girls gone wild (and became fabulously wealthy thereby) did more good than someone like Eunice Shriver who never held a paid job in her life?

The bottom line is that it's infinitely more important what you do with your wealth than whether it was handed to you or you earned it.

It's only "infinitely more important" in your false, theoretical reality.

Give me a Henry Ford or a porn producer any day over Mother Teresa.

It speaks volumes that you hold a person that "never held a paid job in her life" in higher esteem than an individual that actually created wealth.

The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers.

> The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers.

Pablo Escobar produced far more of what people want than our hypothetical porn producer. Feynmann produced far, far less. What exactly is your point?

Of course, this logic could also be applied to war profiteering.

The problem is that economics does not exist in an ideal world with no socio-moral ramifications.

a dollar made at the end of a gun and a dollar made because the purchase was a pareto improvement aren't the same thing. that you could equate the two means that you equate logos and pathos.

Actually, he was making the comparison. Consider, someone who sells weapons is doing exactly what he is talking about: selling people what they want. Economically, this can generally be considered a decent position. Unfortunately, its morally a bad one. My point was that is essential to consider both.

Just because someone produces a product that serves a client base and produces a profit doesn't excuse moral issues. Similarly, just because Mother Theresa was not making a profit does not mean that she did not produce a net good. The two are apples and oranges but must be used in conjunction, not exclusion.

I was unaware that inanimate objects can be morally bad. when guns aren't available in africa villages are simply butchered with machetes. at least a gun can be used equally well by a woman or child as well as a man.

there is a simple solution: don't do business with people who use force, since there is no indication they won't eventually use force on you. do not do business with people who do business with people who use force, they aren't very bright for the above mentioned reason.

What are you talking about?

I was unaware that inanimate objects can be morally bad.

I don't remember saying anything remotely like that. I was talking about selling guns to both sides in an armed conflict for profit. Every comment you seem to change the topic a little bit more.

ah, i ca never tell on the internet exactly what people are trying to say.

my solution still stands. coercion is wrong, profiting from coercion is wrong, akin to selling torture implements.

That may be true, but the inherited rich are contributing to society by investing capital. The self-made rich wouldn't have made it if a venture capital firm wasn't willing to fund them in the initial stages, or the bank wasn't willing to provide a loan, or institutional investors weren't willing to buy IPO shares.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com