Hacker News Reader

Comment by nv-vn | Hacker News Reader

I mean, it is still related to value in the economic sense, but not necessarily the intuitive sense. For example, the Kardashians are certainly "worth" less in cultural value than custodians, but their economic value is much higher because they're much more scarce/have much higher demand. I think that this concept is something that many people on both sides of this debate haven't really taken the time to think about. It definitely does invalidate a lot of the statements like "poor people are just lazy" and it does highlight that capitalism is an ugly system. But at the same time (roughly paraphrasing Churchill) "Capitalism is the worst form of economics, except for all the other ones"

View on HN

It's true that the Kardashians are in high demand. It does not necessarily follow that we as a society should allow them as a consequence to accumulate disproportionate wealth and influence. The incentive argument in particular falls apart here. Do we really need to pay the Kardashians a boatload of money to incentivize them to do whatever it is that they do? Or would it be OK if we taxed the shit out of them and took the risk that they would quit as a result? That seems like a no-brainer to me (in every possible sense).

Anderson Cooper has a higher networth than Kim Kardashian are you ok with taxing him until he quits as well?

Absolutely. I'm OK with getting rid of anyone who is doing what they are doing solely for the money.

> Do we really need to pay the Kardashians a boatload of money to incentivize them to do whatever it is that they do?

That's a good question. I personally don't think so and don't pay them myself. But enough people in our society clearly do, and as long as they have the freedom to chose where they spend their money they should be able to chose to spend it on the Kardashians right?

The question of whether (or how much of) the money they accumulate should be taxed, I believe is a separate issue. I think we could tax the shit out of them, but I would caution against the notion of taxing them more than others on the basis that they're creating less "value" than other rich people. There are clearly plenty of people who highly value whatever it is they produce, and to tell those people otherwise seems like dangerous territory (at least it seems like non-democratic - i.e. when you have a government telling the people what to value).

Yes, I totally agree with this. But I believe there are actually very few people who are actually creating value who would stop doing what they are doing if they were taxed more. The few that do quit, I'll wager there are people willing to step in and take their place. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

This argument is simply frightening first how do you define who creates value? should we now have a citizenship score? Secondly the vast majority of people who work freaking hard jobs would quit if they would be taxed to the point where taking a lower paying, less stress simpler job would be as beneficial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com