Hacker News Reader

> By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money

How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. At the extremes, tiny differences in competence lead to exponentially differing compensation scales. Look at any professional sports league for examples.

> They could afford it. They just don't want to.

Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing.

And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.

> How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square.

If you are relying on rent instead of work for an income, you are mooching, simple and easy. Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation.

> Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits.

Yes, it does. Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling.

> You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not demanding that those earning more than me should be taxed more - I'm very much aware that I'm a privileged member of the 1%. I'm among those that should be taxed more!

>And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.

There are good arguments to be made that a UBI scheme would actually be less complicated than the complex tangle of social support systems we have nowadays. At least in Europe.

> Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation.

No, you're also getting paid for the lack of appreciation of the capital in the machinery, the possibility that the machinery loses value, and the maintenance and upkeep of the machines. If you're a landlord, you're paying for maintenance, property tax, and code upgrades in exchange for money for shelter. It's just a means of exchange of goods for money, like any other.

Or do would you rather that productive machinery (including capital) be not produce, and capital locked away from productive use? By not charging money for the use of goods, you disincentivize the purchase of capital machinery/real estate as there is no upside, only downside to ownership/usage.

> Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It isn't right for people to charge rent for the use of capital, just because, and you have to redistribute wealth because otherwise you'll be forced to anyways, screw what's right. Either argue from the moral high ground or sheer pragmatism. You can't have both.

> I'm among those that should be taxed more!

Nobody is stopping you from donating more money to the government or any number of good charities. Why should extra taxation be necessary and involuntary when people with consciences like you are willing to act on your better impulses rather than just whine about the status quo?

Nominal wages have increased since 1970. Where did the money go? It's not hard, it's basic math: deficit spending necessitates printing money (done in various ways, notably QE) , which eats away spending power.

That explains where the money went, but what happened to all that production?

IMHO instead of raising taxes, states could focus on giving employees the salary and the security they deserve. If the productivity indeed increased 3x, then employees should be able to benefit from it not the state.

I want to believe in a world, where you receive wealth by creating it.

Worker-owned production would indeed be a good idea to assure that those creating wealth are actually the ones that are receiving it.

However; when faced with more and more integrated and automated production and services, I'm afraid that in the long run there wont be many jobs left to create wealth. Instead all wealth will belong to those owning the production capacity.

I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production. If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth.

In that case engineers and technicians get the money they deserve by the wealth they create. The owners of these machines provide the necessary capital (financial/technical) to make automation possible.

We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place. That is the very premise of a liberal economy.

I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.

> I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production.

The problem with automation is that more and more people end up without job. That's the only problem with automation I see. As for worker-owned production; in the face of automation, in my opinion it's a medium-term solution only.

> If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth.

But that's not what happens. Fist, no one "figures out a way to create the machines". You build upon the collective knowledge of you society to improve on existing designs. And it's the use of this collective knowledge that indebts you to society.

Second; even if someone figures out a way to improve a machine and automate more work; that person won't be the one to collect the gains. Instead it will be the employer, while the ingenious employee gets a modest one-time bonus.

> We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place.

Usually the owners of production capacity are not the managers of production capacity. The times where the factory owner was sitting in a bureau above the manufacturing floor are long past.

> That is the very premise of a liberal economy.

Which is not the economy we have.

> I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.

You see, there's the problem; there is no free market. What we have today is a system of crony-capitalism where those with wealth have the power to shape the rules of the market to their advantage while everybody else loses out.

I haven't thought about the aspect of our debt to collective knowledge.

It's true that we owe a lot to our society. If I couldn't find a doctor, a pharmacist, an Internet Service Provider, a supermarket I wouldn't be able to live.

But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?

The fact that we don't live in a liberal economy may be true, and I'm probably too naive in my thinking.

I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.

> But where do we draw the line? Should we forego our right to profit from our talents/luck/ambitions to repay our debt of benefiting from the collective knowledge. Or is it enough that we make meaningful contributions (for example mentoring an intern, writing a book or coaching a team)?

This is a very good question. One to which I hope to find an answer someday.

> I want to believe in a free market, because if we don't have it I can't imagine how we would build a peaceful forward-moving society.

I too think that a market is a better solution for resource distribution than a centralized planning system. Let's get rid of incorporation. Level the playing field. Demolish the abomination of legal personhood. Minimize the capability of a market participant to externalize costs. There are many ways in which the current market implementation suck. Maybe we can fix it?

Wow :), "demolishing the abomination of legal personhood" is not needed. We need to fight monopolies and demolish market entry barriers not the "legal person".

The legal personality is a fundemantal concept of our law system. For example states are legal persons, that is how you can sue the state and get compensation. Publicly traded incorporations on the other hand are a bit tricky. My professor always said these types of corporations are the greatest invention since the steam engine. Maybe we could further this analogy. Banning steam engines would've probably sustained the growth of industralization. Without industralization we could avoid the inhuman treatment of workers, the pollution. But at the same time, we wouldn't have improved, we wouldn't get to achieve the level of productivity we have today.

On the other hand the law of corporations is getting insanely complex and it must be simplified.

It takes time and stability to cultivate a healthy law culture, and at our current state I believe that new advancements in this field of law will be made.

If we could minimize corruption and try to stick to a Randian ethics standard, whilst providing free and decent healthcare and education, I believe that the society will continue to improve. I think it's not the idea of the current market that sucks, the problem is at our implementation.