Remix.run Logo
kingstoned 6 hours ago

If you want to understand why someone would even propose taking from the rich and complain about inequality, this post titled "Inequality Talk Is About Grabbing " is illuminating: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/inequality-is-about-grabbin...

idle_zealot 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think your blog post is confused. People on the left are pro-taxation because they (a) think billionaires do not have superpowers, and are benefiting from some combination of systemic injustices and plain old fraud gussied up for the modern era, and (b) think superheroes actually shouldn't be allowed to have 1,000,000 times the influence over the structure of the world and its economy compared to a mundane human, even if they existed.

There isn't a level of competence or ability that shifts the answer to the morality of power. There's not an earning threshold you can cross that entitles you to own a fiefdom or a level of genius that grants you moral right to dictate how others use your inventions. We create democracy and grant everyone an equal vote in matters that impact their lives. The economy gets layered on top to allocate resources efficiently. If the economy is deciding that some people live like kings and some like serfs, then we've failed to construct an economy that lives up to liberal values.

tadfisher 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is not illuminating at all. Like, the author just imagines the premise and finds three ways to repeat it. There is no exploration into why people think inequality is unfair; the underlying assumption is that it is perfectly natural and trying to address it is hypocritical and harmful.

The other major assumption is that billionaires are rich because of something they did or are good at doing, better than anyone else could in their position. There is no challenge to this assumption in the text.

This belies a deep disconnect with reality, and an unwillingness to confront the idea that maybe excessive inequality is caused by too much concentrated power changing the rules to further concentrate power. Taxation is just one mechanism to combat this tendency; another way is the guillotine.

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
keybored 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you want to understand why someone would even propose taking from the rich and complain about inequality,

Because they want to take back what was taken from them.

meta_gunslinger 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Why is that the case?

5 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
boomskats 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow, what a piece of text. Just, wow. Our poor billionaires and their tasty, tasty boots.

wat10000 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't speak for others, but this doesn't match my thinking at all.

I want to heavily tax the ultra rich because money is power, and vast inequality in power is undemocratic and just plain dangerous.

I don't really care if somebody buys ten massive yachts. It's annoying and seems wasteful but it's not worth too much of my attention.

But it's another matter if somebody buys politicians, laws, social change. The issue with someone like Elon Musk isn't that he owns a private jet, or even that he owns a rocket company, it's that he bought his way to taking an axe to major parts of our government by pouring unimaginable amounts of money into buying a presidential election.

It's not about grabbing stuff, it's about preventing people from accumulating too much power. The ultra-wealthy should be heavily taxed for the same reason the President shouldn't be given unlimited power to do whatever they want.

meta_gunslinger 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Easily solved, remove the power centers and then the billionaires will have no power to buy or influence with their money.

mrguyorama 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's no such thing as "Power centers".

Money is that power.

You cannot have billionaires and them not be immensely, structurally powerful.

That's the entire point of capitalism, that resources, including labor, be directed by those with capital.

Believing you can have a single human being in control of a non-negligible percentage of all resources of a country, and they wont somehow be actually powerful or influential is moronic.

Taking the power away from billionaires literally IS taking their money.

meta_gunslinger 3 hours ago | parent [-]

“Money is that power.”

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Power is power. Members of the Communist Party in the USSR were as wealthy as their subjects, their power differential was enormous.

wat10000 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Not all power is money, but money is power.

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Define "easily" for us, please.

meta_gunslinger 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Don't hand over power to politicians, bureaucrats and NGOs. It's not rocket science to need further explanation.

blanched 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Politicians, by definition, have power. How do you easily remove or withhold it?

meta_gunslinger 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's the degree of power they hold, not a binary. A politican in Switzerland has much less power than a politician in China.

When your power is to determine which day the recycling truck is dropping-by, hardly anyone wants to coerce that power. But when it is e.g printing money the calculus is massively different.

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> When your power is to determine which day the recycling truck is dropping-by, hardly anyone wants to coerce that power.

I take it you've never encountered a homeowner's association.

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I thought you said it was easy?

wat10000 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I know, that's why I want to tax them, to remove their power.

Of course, you probably mean to remove their power centers without removing their money. But that doesn't make any sense. Money is power. You can't remove the power from a billionaire and leave them a billionaire.

idle_zealot 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Don't want to be ruled by billionaires, peasants? Have you tried dismantling your government so they can't buy it? That will surely save you."

meta_gunslinger 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn’t that what Anarchists and Marxists peddle to the peasants?

idle_zealot 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A Marxist peddles restructuring of the government to better represent the people. Notable attempts at that replaced existing governments with autocracies that promptly killed the Marxists and Anarchists among them, which is not what you were talking about, I don't think. What kind of revolutionary wants only to tear down their government and not replace it? Anarcho-primitivists, I guess?

GuinansEyebrows 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this is some of the most insipid dreck i've read in a long time. the only thing illuminated here is the author's complete lack of understanding regarding ability and worth and total inability to think beyond a system imposed upon him by others. i think the kids would say he's "billionaire glazing".

scottious 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The vibe I get is that he's saying "you poors are just jealous of the billionaires who are smarter and richer than you, so you want to take it away from them"

The comparison to _literal super heroes_ from comic books definitely made me roll my eyes

My problem with billionaires is that their gains are in part from exploitation. I just don't believe that one person can actually produce billions of dollars of value all by themselves. They extract that value from other people and our whole system is structured to promote this.

There are probably millions people who could have been Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or Elon Musk or whoever. A million people with the right skills who maybe were born a few years too late or didn't have the right connections or just didn't have rich enough parents. It's a little too "winner take all" for my taste. And then those few winners end up having disproportionate affect on politics and issues that affect us all. It's just not a great system.

cayley_graph 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.

There are certainly sometimes unusual abilities in a positive sense, but the common case likely falls closer to having an unusual degree of sociopathy. It is unclear to me how else one could view the state of perfectly solvable human suffering in the world and continue to prioritize accumulating wealth over all else, moreover and overwhelmingly at the cost of being party to the suffering itself. Indeed, I suspect having such callous disregard for your fellow person is prerequisite to encountering these unfathomable sums.

When people with an intact capacity for empathy come into huge amounts of money I think it's far more common to give a large proportion of it away (say, Jane Street workers have a culture of doing this). And thus you only stay 'comfortably' wealthy, rather than accumulating so much that it distorts society around your singular existence.

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.

If you count luck, maybe.

> But what if most billionaires had super-powers of the traditional comic book sort, like x-ray vision or an ability to fly, etc.? That is, what if people with physical super-powers earned billions in the labor market by selling the use of these powers? Would folks be just as eager to tax them to reduce unfair inequality?

Yes, I would.

> But if those few very rich folks had real physical super-powers, we would be a lot more afraid of their simple physical retaliation. They might be very effective at physically resisting our attempts to take their stuff.

Yes, and this is why a lot of superhero movies involve fighting the greedy superpowered villain.

blanched 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right, as presented, these people are closer to Lex Luthor than Superman.

And I would still want to tax Superman.

futter9 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What motivates this?

An element of fairness.

> Why can't you just leave people be?

Because they're making employees piss in bottles to survive the workday? They're buying up the representatives who are supposed to represent me? They're driving services we rely on into austerity? They get bailouts when they fuck up?

futter9 6 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

tadfisher 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That literally happened, Amazon got sued, Amazon apologized: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56628745

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> you can't complain when sociopathic billionaires decide that it's "fair" you piss in bottles for minimum wage

Why not? They already did it.

meta_gunslinger 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]