Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm persuaded that wealth taxes and maximum income are the appropriate solution: after X million per year, you don't get more money, and after you and your family heap up Y million of _fluidly defined_ assets, you get taxed on what you hold/control/manage-via-tax-shelter.

Obliterate the tax shelters, obliterate the tax havens, bring the money back home under threat of criminal law.

I'm not saying you can't be a fat cat. But at a certain point (fluid and blurry, but distinctly present), it's just morbid obesity that is squishing other citizens.




Everybody tends to put that certain point above where they are at. I realize, as limited to a US discussion, it is easy to say Bezos and Gates are rich, I am not. But if this was expanded, simply as a thought experiment, to the entire world would you be fine classified as a "fat cat"?

Assuming (perhaps incorrectly) you are in the US, you are also reading Hacker News, so you are probably the top 1% of the worlds wealthiest. Again, just a thought experiment, but would you be fine with your government saying that as a 1 percenter in world wealth you can no longer earn anymore, you have hit that certain point, are a fat cat and can grow no more wealth, under threat of criminal law?


This sort of logic is also why it's hard to get this sort of legislation passed nowadays.

Media has done a good job of raising awareness of the problems of wealth disparity, and a lot of people nod along.

But no matter how wealthy someone is, they can always point to the more-rich and say those people are the problem and should be taxed, not themselves.


> But no matter how wealthy someone is, they can always point to the more-rich and say those people are the problem and should be taxed, not themselves.

This is obviously untrue. There isn't an infinite number of people wealthier than Gates or the Waltons or the Rothschilds. At some point there is no one further up the economic ladder in whatever location you're talking about.


Sure, but it's literally untrue for only one person in the world, or let's say a handful of people if you want to restrict by geography (although it seems the richer you are, the easier it is to shift wealth around).


That argument is relatively vacuous on its face, because that is moral flattening (along with intentionally misunderstanding the problem), and promotes inaction.


How can you implement such a practice when our politicians and leaders are fat cats (or aspiring fat cats)? Only vote for people below a certain wealth line?


Throwing politicians out of office who don't do it and promoting a stigma around vast amounts of wealth will change things.

Elections matter.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: