Hacker News Reader

Comment by GAN_Game | Hacker News Reader

> Isn’t income equality (government interventions in some aspects aside) a mere reflection of people’s contribution to a economy and their ability to negotiate? So, are you assuming/applying everyone more or less has the same contribution or do you want everyone to be paid the same irrespective?

Sure, the heirs from Rich Kids of Instagram are living off their rentier expropriation as a "reflection of people’s contribution to a economy", while the people doing the work and creating the wealth are contributing less to the economy, in your view.

The fruits of the economy are swallowed up by these parasitic heirs expropriating surplus labor time from those who work and create wealth, but your view is parasitism is somehow the greater contribution to the economy.

View on HN

So you are mainly talking about passive income inequality? I was talking about income that is earned.

Well, what do you want me to say: the country I live in we have a high tax on inheritance, capital gains etc.

But to me personally: I am grown up enough to not care how many Porsches my neighbor has. How does this matter? There are resources that cover basic needs such as health, living, education and food. But in Europe you get all that for free irrespective whether you work or not. Health coverage is as good for an unemployed family not speaking the language as it is for two full time working parents. As is schooling as is university.

> But to me personally: I am grown up enough to not care how many Porsches my neighbor has. How does this matter?

When something I made is sold at a company, used raw materials are rebought, but then left over is the wealth I created. A portion goes to me in wages, a portion is mailed off in dividend checks to the heir who is expropriating my surplus time. It matters because the heir is expropriating surplus labor time from me, and all the wealth I create in this time. That is why it matters.

Then you have either negotiated your share in value creation poorly or your skills are easily sourced.

Irrespective of that you are assuming happiness is just associated to absolute monetary wealth - which I disagree with. If basic resources and needs are catered for and the rest is spent on luxury goods or extravagant lifestyles - how would I care? If you want to still play that game, just travel and ask yourself what a person living in India/Bangladesh/Laos would say about your first world problems. Being born into a wealthy society is the most important differentiator for wealth - and I assume you are totally ok with the luck you had there!?

Vanishingly few people are arguing for complete equality of outcome. As long as everyone[1] has a reasonable quality of life and inequality isn't so great that the wealthy can flout the rules that apply to everyone else, then I don't think that most people, even on the left, would have a problem. However, that's not what America currently has.

[1] I'm using "everyone" metaphorically here. No system is going to have literally no one who falls through the cracks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com