Hacker News Reader

> However, wouldn't it be even better if the benefits were not just received by the public, but steered by the public as well? In fact, if we imagine public management of such funds, then we need only have a political process in order to establish a management policy.

I think this assumes far higher governmental competence and efficiency than is warranted.

Ah, yes, and what have the Romans done for us recently? If you want something steered by the public, then we are talking about politics. The messiness is inherent to the problematic nature of large-scale planning and logistics, and a corporate veneer of neat tidiness is probably not good for transparent finances and accounting.

> Why are you interested in keeping billionaires rich?

Probably because billionaires don't stay wealthy, probably because politicians are generally really bad at spending tax money, probably because how would Tesla exist.

There needs to be a class of people that can say 'f*ck it' and bet the farm to make moonshots.

> However, wouldn't it be even better if the benefits were not just received by the public, but steered by the public as well?

You need to consider real world politics and not only consider political ideology. Right now if you were to implement your plan you'd give Trump more money to build his wall. I don't imagine that is what you'd want. Don't think about what you want to do, also think about what you don't want to happen.

Plus you are proposing shift money (power) from 607 individuals (billionaires in the USA) to 535 individuals (members of congress). You've not solved the problem, you've just moved it to an a group of self serving individuals that wouldn't understand the value of money.

> Imagine maximum salaries or maximum wages; it's along the same lines

I have read somewhere that the main reason capitalism has worked well over communism is, capitalism explicitly does not put a cap on wealth (and therefore, money) a person can accumulate since different people bring different values in society and the moment you put a cap on that, the person will lose motivation and stop even bringing the expected value for the cap that is being proposed.

I'm in no way arguing for/against taxing the wealthy and do not have a well-informed stance in this issue. Because, I also think money breeds money and if you are wealthy, the probability of you gaining more wealth increases exponentially.

Personally, I think maximum salaries or maximum wages will not work since it inherently has some disadvantages - do you propose an absolute maximum value for everyone in this world? or do you propose region wise or based on some other criteria? If region wise, just like remote work salaries, people will start gaming the system etc etc ... I think this discussion goes far more than keeping billionaires rich and discounting the segment of people who might end up in that list sometime in future, but maybe they are holding themselves back from giving more value to society because of these laws?

Sure, here's a basic rule of thumb. We value people, just as bulk humans, at around $10mil/person. [0] (Lots of good practical philosophy at that FAQ!) Some people are better than others. I've never met somebody who's 1000x better than me, though, and I don't think that they exist; simultaneously, I'd never want to treat somebody more than 1000x worse than I'm being treated. So I think that we can cap the maximum compensation at 1000x the minimum compensation, or $10bil/yr, whichever is lower.

I don't know what you've read, but one of the important features of (capital-C) Communism is a great reduction in what can be held as personal property. A Communist typically would not argue that people be restricted in how much money they hold, but that people be restricted from holding any money at all, since money has no use within a Communist commune. I'm not arguing at all for Communism.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-v...

> maximum salaries or maximum wages

Yah, we tried that in WW2 and now we are stuck with employer paid healthcare. I'd rather not.

[flagged]

The middle class in america is shrinking because of inequal wealth redistribution. Super riches amass more and more wealth through their stored wealth, while the revenues of the middle class lose its purchasing power because of that "controlled" inflation which never allow salaries to rise despise the rise of price of goods, or if you prefer, the cost of living.

What created the middle class in America and western world was created thanks to redistribution of wealth through a tax sheme taxing you more according to your wealth, and these taxe paying for public expense, like medical care, instruction, public infrastructure and so on.

Neo-liberal policies and tax reform removed that burden from the wealthiest and cut "public funding" shifting the cost of services assumed once by a strong State to individuals, like instruction.

That's how wealthiest are now allowed to accumulate more and more wealth, and middle class is burdened under a crippling amount of debt.

15 years ago, Bill Gates wealth was "only" 50 billions. Now it's 100. And in 20 years it will be 200. On the other end, diabetics are dying because they have to save on insuline shots, people affected by cancer has to fill for bankrupties because of the cost of their treatment, people avoid visiting the doctor for serious issues unless it's a matter of life or death. Cuba has a better life expectancy rate than the Us.

Sounds an awful lot like Bolshevik propaganda from a long ago failed state.

Say that to Roosevelt. His policies created the middle class. The richest paying up to 90% of revenue on taxes. Nothing bolcheviks. You're the one serving us red scare propaganda.

Those rat bastard Medicis! Oh if we could have kept them down.