
Don’t the Rich Deserve to Keep Their Money? (2016) - dsr12
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/tax-the-rich-capitalism-marx-socialism/
======
lisper
This idea that wealth is somehow related to creating value, and these kinds of
incentives are necessary in order to induce people to do this kind of work, is
a deliberate marketing ploy, and a fairly recent one at that, pretty much
dating back only to the 1970s or so. Before that, the kinds of professions we
today associate with being "rich and famous" (as if these two things were
inherently related to each other somehow) -- actors, sports players, inventors
-- were not particularly well paid. Before the 19th century, there was no such
thing as a professional athlete. There were professional actors, but that was
considered a borderline dishonorable profession. The history of invention
since the industrial revolution is chock full of people who made important
technological or scientific breakthroughs who never made a dime off their
work. Most early science was done by people who were already rich, mostly
through inherited wealth, or people who, like today, had wealthy patrons. The
truly rich were, still are, and have always been, the ones in a position and
with the inclination to bend the system to their advantage by whatever means
they could.

~~~
gus_massa
> _Before the 19th century, there was no such thing as a professional athlete.
> There were professional actors, but that was considered a borderline
> dishonorable profession._

And that changed with TV (and cinema).

In the 19th century an actor can play in front of one or two hundred persons
each day at most. Now a good movie can be played in front of millions of
persons. The same changes applies to sports.

~~~
dogma1138
It’s not that different today the vast majority of actors today are not rich
or even well paid. A list actors are and that hasn’t changed at all.

Historically “traveling” actors were often looked down on not that differently
than say street performers or your Hollywood “acting waitresses” that gets a
few gigs a year as an extra.

However the historical equivalent of A list actors would be acting groups like
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain%27s_Men](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain%27s_Men)
or
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Strange%27s_Men](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Strange%27s_Men).

And even in the 16th century many famous actors became very wealthy take the
likes of Edward Alleyn and William Knell for example.

------
nv-vn
My other comment got deleted cause this was flagged while I was typing it. As
someone who disagreed with the premise of the article, I'm ashamed that
someone else would partake in censorship of this opinion. HN is not for one
side or the other, and the expectation coming into HN should not be only
finding people who agree with you. I'm certain that most of HN's audience
disagrees with Paul Graham on fundamental political issues (including the fact
that he disagrees with this very opinion in the article), and yet that hasn't
turned HN into an ideological echo chamber where everyone disagrees with him.
Flagging should be saved for spam or flame wars, not routine discussion of
political issues relevant to startups.

~~~
opportune
I have been flagged for similar posts before. It's a shame so many people use
it as a mega-downvote button

------
INTPenis
That tagline made me cringe. Redistribution of wealth is not just about
enjoying the fruits of someones labor.

It's about giving a larger group of people the chance to use those resources
and that safety net to contribute back to society and maybe even become one of
those super rich whom the article is talking about.

I agree with the author that the people on the top aren't different than
everybody else. They just managed to get to the top. Those skills and that
drive can be found in people of all social layers.

So it's not about getting to the top. It's about getting there by contributing
back to society.

Most of the article seems to try and justify taxes. I'm sorry the climate is
so bad that taxes need to be justified.

Where I'm from in Europe we see a lot of young entrepreneurs and musicians
mostly because we have a strong safety net. You can drop out of school and
focus on your music without living homeless, and without having rich
parents/sponsors.

Then you can change your mind and go back to school without falling into
massive debt.

This gives more people the chance at making something of themselves and
thereby contributing back to society at some point. Instead of harshly casting
them out of society with crippling debt or just living hand to mouth for the
rest of their lives.

~~~
lixtra
I don’t see that Europe produces more/better entrepreneurs/musicians than say
the US.

Maybe they have a less stressful life and feel better.

~~~
Eridrus
There's a bunch of statistics that show the US is not particularly
entrepreneurial.

The US does have very high levels of VC investment, a large single market with
(often) consistent regulation and language, and this helps startups survive
more than they do in Europe.

I sometimes think of starting a startup back in Australia, but it always seems
like a bad idea because of the lack of VC and lack of customers.

But I think the US should see this as an opportunity, if the US had better
policies, we could get better outcomes than even now, because we have a lot of
non-policy benefits already!

~~~
nv-vn
To be fair though, a lot of the more advanced European countries have much
lower corporate tax rates than the US does (or at least did). E.g. Sweden's is
22% and there's no state corporate income tax rate on top of that. In fact,
the US was one of only a few highly developed countries with an above-average
corporate income tax rate until the recent tax cuts, with higher tax rates
than all of Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. [1].
There are a lot of data indicating that low corporate tax rates do just as
much if not more than low income tax rates to spur
innovation/entrepreneurship.

[1] [https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170113143228/World-
Combine...](https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170113143228/World-Combined-
Statutory-Rates-01.png)

~~~
Eridrus
I don't think high corporate taxes make sense, but I'm not convinced they
would have much effect on entrepreneurship. By definition they are taxes on
profits, and corporations can deduct a lot more from their taxes than people
can.

As someone who has considered starting a startup, corporate tax rates have
never really concerned me since the biggest hurdle is just getting back a
comparable salary for myself, and anything else, e.g. smoothing income over
multiple years, is just gravy. I don't think this logic would be very
different for more traditional small businesses either.

And even before the recent changes, effective US tax rates were not
significantly different from effective EU tax rates:
[https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-
corporat...](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporate-
tax-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries)

Also, colour-coded maps are a terrible way to make actual comparisons.

------
JamesBarney
At large corporations it always seemed to me the people who got promoy into
the executive track were 10% people who were really good at their jobs, 90%
people who were really good at convoncing their boss they were really good at
their jobs.(aka managing up)

------
antisthenes
It won't matter in the end, and I know people like to keep saying that it's
not a zero sum game, but eventually when the ecosystems are ruined and
worldwide hunger is the norm (again), they'll see that the size of the pie
can't keep growing exponentially.

~~~
nv-vn
I mean, if that's your logic about this, does the system even matter? If we're
eventually gonna hit a stopping point that reverts us back to starvation then
it seems like everything is an equally bad choice.

------
writepub
Current US tax law clearly taxes the rich more. What's more, about 85% of the
taxes are paid by the top 20% [1]

When people, especially socialist, claim the rich aren't paying their fair
share, it's just rhetoric.

[1]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-
inc...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-
tax-1428674384)

~~~
opportune
85% of the taxes are paid by the top 20% because the bottom 80% are so
comparatively poor. Note that almost 40% of taxes are paid by the top 1% -
knowing what the top marginal rate is, that should tell you just how much more
they make than everyone else.

The article even mentions very explicitly that capitalism hinges on the
state's ability to protect private property, regulate markets (tort,
antitrust), and create infrastructure. Why should the people who most benefit
from this system not have to contribute proportionally more?

~~~
SamReidHughes
It's actually the poor that benefit most from the system. They suffer most
when there's weak law enforcement.

------
ddingus
Wrong question, if you ask me.

I think people should make as much as they can.

New money comes from risk. It is created at the time of lending and said risk
is valued. Basically, does the loan stand a chance of being repaid?

Right now, stats vary on this, but I saw one recently citing 140 million
Americans at poverty level or below.

It is very clear, regardless of where one falls on all of that, very large
numbers of people, and growing numbers at that, cannot participate
meaningfully in also growing numbers of markets.

Their appetite for risk is nil, as they struggle to meet basic needs. Their
liquid dollars are also nil, as what comes in goes right back out. A majority
of Americans cannot handle a $1000 unplanned expense.

Credit only goes so far too.

On a moral basis, I find the idea of extreme wealth on the rise, while so many
people really struggle, dubious.

But, just as a matter of economics, does it not make sense most people should
be able to make it, even take some risk when they are working full time?

Who will buy the stuff otherwise?

Keep the money. By all means make more. But, maybe, just maybe paying people
enough to participate goes along with the deal too.

Or, if not, why bother?

Failure on the wage front, measured by people unable to make ends meet

, and or,

put another way, failure to actually make it cheaper to live, those
productivity gains, greater efficiencies not playing out as real for way too
many people, unable to make ends meet on basically flat wages for decades now

, both combine to limit growth, increase overall costs and risks.

These manifest as crime, over dependence on safety net programs, limits on
many new products and who can afford them, and a decline in standard of living
for many over time.

The basic deal on all this is improvements for everyone in return for great
profit and economic freedom for those getting it done.

Great! I am a believer, except for the growing number of Americans in real
economic trouble. That kind of growth is toxic. It comes with costs, qnd even
larger opportunity costs.

It is all those people checking out, not buying new cars, homes, starting
little businesses, not making the next best thing in their garage that will
really begin to add up now.

I want the super wealthy to carry on. Go make more. It is OK.

But, I also want those people able to participate and live modest reasonable
lives too. As a nation, we will be so strong, capable, innovative...

I feel strongly that somehow capping wealth will not end well. Existing
wealth, if no one else does, will fight that.

As they should.

Which leaves the question of labor, which just needs more, or just needs life
to actually be cheaper to make things work well.

Some portion of people will fail. I get that, and we have safety nets and such
for them. They are not in discussion.

No, this is about a growing body of hard working poor. Automation is not yet
able to rid us of basic labors. And we all need those basic labors done too.

...unless we want to have to do them ourselves. I do not. I can do less basic
things, and I should. So should everyone here.

But, our garbage people, food handlers, cleaners, diggers, builders, etc...
have families too. Our kids probably play ball together.

I have said enough.

Keep the money, make more!

But also give some thought about how it actually gets cheaper to live a modest
life, with dignity, family

, or

How do we get those basic labors better funded?

Either can work, and either will improve our growth, standard of living. As
more people can participate in the growing number and scale of markets, the
investments in them will deliver very nice returns over time.

Seems to me those are much better questions.

