Remix.run Logo
zuzululu 8 hours ago

good for him!

but empty words to the american working class

it may be too late, now ppl hate the rich

WalterBright 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I know two people who immigrated to the US with essentially no money. They're multimillionaires now. America is the place to be if you want to get wealthy.

WalterBright 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've always been an advocate of the free market. And I'll tell you why.

When I was 9, my dad arranged a tour of East Berlin for his family. As part of the deal with the USSR when the 4 zones were partitioned, this was allowed for an Air Force officer. This was at the height of the Cold War.

The Wall is gone now, but it was something to behold in those days. There's the Wall, the kill zone, the tank traps, the dogs, the watchtowers, the barbed wire, and the machine guns. All on the east side.

We went through Checkpoint Charlie on a bus, and were searched by the East German guards entering and exiting. The guards ran a mirror under the bus. They were all carrying machine guns. You could sum up East Berlin in one word - grey.

There was a museum next to Checkpoint Charlie, which was about the Wall. It was loaded with pictures of east Germans being killed trying to escape to the west.

West Berlin built platforms next to the Wall, so you can stand on the platform and look over it and see what a freakin' abomination it was. I never heard of anyone using those platforms to "escape" to East Berlin.

In West Berlin, there was the Russian War Memorial. It was an island of East Berlin surrounded by the west. The memorial was surrounded by barbed wire. There were two guards on duty there, with machine guns, of course. We waved at them, and they grinned at us.

Then an officer came out and looked them up and down. Their faces turned to stone, looking straight ahead.

I asked my dad about it, he said the guards were a pair who didn't know each other, with strict orders to shoot the other if one attempted to get escape through the barbed wire.

It was pretty obvious to my 9 year old mind that people simply do not like living under communism.

I've read a lot of history books over the years. It's pretty clear that communes and communism and socialism do not work. They don't work when people do them freely, they don't work when people are forced into it.

And the more free market a country is, the more prosperous it is. The evidence is strong and everywhere.

WalterBright 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some time ago, an American leftist told me that the Berlin Wall was necessary to keep the West out of East Berlin. he wasn't happy when I started laughing. I said that even to a 9 year old, it was clear the tank traps were set up to stop people fleeing to the West.

It's too bad the Westerners did not leave a section of the Wall standing. It would stop people from rewriting the truth about it.

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
hnav 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

East-side gallery is still standing.

WalterBright 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Just the Wall or including the defense-in-depth?

hnav 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If you mean watchtowers with armed guards, then no those don't exist anymore.

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I meant what I wrote about the defense in depth. But no, the guards wouldn't be necessary.

GaryBluto an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you have a blog or website with similar anecdotes of life? I found this very interesting.

zuzululu 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

America is the place for very few people to get wealthy relatively compared to the rest is more accurate.

I don't know how long this asymmetric upside down pyramid structure will hold. Monopoly on violence requires participants to believe in its continuity, any fracture in perception no matter how small, will create an increasingly chaotic redistribution effect.

nunez 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Disagree. I have gripes with my country right now, but it's impossible to ignore how much easier to make and save a lot of money here in the US compared to other places.

First, it's so easy to start a business in the US.

$1000 (maybe less?) gets you an LLC or an S-Corp, properly done with an accountant. $200/mo gets you a virtual office or a coworking space. Tax code is also friendly to small businesses. Healthcare is the only disadvantage, though you can get on group plans to work around that.

If you have an idea, it's easy (well, easier) to scale it in the US.

Actually, going back to taxes. Tax in the US is CHEAP compared to other developed countries. I met someone from Denmark some time ago that told my wife and I that they left to escape 50% taxes. Here, the worst you'll do is ~38%, federal, state and city combined. This means that you can make great money as a worker bee depending on the industry.

All of this is a major reason why so many people all over the world come to the US, make their money (with enough to send to family back home) and move back.

gottorf 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"The rest" is still quite wealthy, even by today's developed economy standards. Median household disposable income is higher in Mississippi, a state widely panned for its poverty, than Germany, the richest major EU nation.

In American discourse, there's a ton of talk about inequality from the haves against the have-mores, pushing policy that often times will lead to worse outcomes for the have-nots.

micro2588 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

median household income is not higher in missisippi vs germany, especially not true if you adjust for the value of healthcare, education, and social benefits including time off work.

gottorf 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There are, of course, many ways to measure this, some of which are slightly higher for Germany and some for Mississippi. Many are in the same ballpark, which is pretty crazy to think about. Many of these statistics take into account the taxpayer-funded programs you mentioned.

Broadly speaking, the median Mississippian is about as rich as the median German, with the tradeoff being that the Mississippian has greater access to private goods (e.g. a fishing boat or a big car), whereas the German has greater access to public goods (e.g. socialized insurance or college).

My point is that even "the poor" in America are really quite well off, and not just in historical terms.

micro2588 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why is the median considered "poor"? The true poor in Mississippi are way worse off than those in Germany. If you neglect everything it takes to live a good life like public capital, education, healthcare, time off with family, a retirement, total years on this earth and ignore the insane inequality in Mississippi then sure the median numbers are not that far off.

gottorf 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why is the median considered "poor"

Because most big-city coastal Americans think of the median Mississippian as that way.

> If you neglect everything it takes to live a good life [...]

We're speaking past each other somewhat. You seem to have a belief system that says a good life is not possible without the stuff that Germany provides via taxation and redistribution. Whether that stuff is a necessary or sufficient condition for a good life for you, I'm not sure; but it is clear you place a lot of importance on it.

I'm saying that in America, more of those things are left to choice to the people, and that a good life, even a great life, is available to the average Joe (hence my banging on about the median) in one of the poorest states in the union, to a degree that is not matched anywhere else.

Put another way: you've defined a good life in large part as access to taxpayer-subsidized goods and services, or at any rate the lifestyle outcomes enabled by such access. By that metric, you're right, Mississippi comes behind Germany, and America as a whole likely behind Germany. But if you look at people voting with their feet over the past few decades, more Germans settled in America than the other way around in absolute numbers; which is even more striking if you consider the difference in population. Clearly there exist people who value the stuff that America has to offer that Germany doesn't.

micro2588 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Emigration of Germans to the USA is only 10,00-15,000 people per year since 2000 and is trending down especially since 2016 to lowest levels ever. Emigration of US citizens to Germany started from almost nothing around the same time and is now trending up to almost 1,500 people a year. We are talking about a small number of decidedly non median people in either case but even then the rate of change is clear, neglecting the fact that Germans learn English in public school while Americans typically don't have public schooling in German. My family is descended from German immigrants who came during the 1930s to escape right wing authoritarianism.

computerex 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your point is totally and completely wrong. Germany has public benefits that actually matter. Germany's average life expectancy is ahead of Mississippi by *10 years*. Germany ranks as one of the highest in the world in general satisfaction of the people, Mississippi does not.

gottorf 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Your point is totally and completely wrong. Germany has public benefits that actually matter.

Objectively wrong, because Germany does better in the things that subjectively matter to you?

> Germany's average life expectancy is ahead of Mississippi by 10 years.

Comparing like for like, that gap drops down to 5-6 years and puts Mississippi on par with, say, Thailand or Latvia. Hardly grounds for condemnation.

> Germany ranks as one of the highest in the world in general satisfaction of the people, Mississippi does not.

Those rankings are all stupid, but in most of the ones I've seen, Germany ranks a scant few spots higher than the US. Sure, if Mississippi were a country, the distance would be greater, but how meaningful is it? I just saw one that ranks Saudi Arabia and El Salvador ahead of Spain and Italy[0].

And in any case, why do people keep leaving those satisfactory countries for America?

[0]: https://data.worldhappiness.report/table

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> general satisfaction of the people

Different groups of people have different ideas of what "general satisfaction" is. Hence, such cross-group studies are pretty suspect.

micro2588 an hour ago | parent [-]

One objective measure of satisfaction is if you are alive and healthy, hard to be satisfied otherwise.

computerex 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> And in any case, why do people keep leaving those satisfactory countries for America?

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2026/...

America used to be a great place to be. To put it in perspective, I myself am an American in the top 5% of earning households. I am strongly considering leaving. The value is no longer here. I don't want to live in a country where my healthcare is conditional, on principal. I don't want to live in a country where the Epstein class is protected.

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> used to be

People in America used to pay for healthcare out of pocket, instead of relying on insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

> where the Epstein class is protected

Epstein died in jail.

> The value is no longer here

Rosie O'Donnell didn't stay in Ireland very long.

> I am strongly considering leaving.

Fortunately, you live in a country where nobody is going to stop you from leaving.

zuzululu 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

WalterBright 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The top 1% of America pays 40% of the federal income taxes.

Getting rid of the rich is probably a pretty bad idea for the rest of us.

overfeed 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The 1% hold more than 40% of the wealth, and therefore should be paying much more than 40% of income taxes, based on proportion alone - nevermind historic precedence before trickle-down Reaganomics.

When the top 1% are not in the top tax bracket, something is horribly wrong.

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They are in the top tax bracket.

The federal income tax is based on income, not wealth.

overfeed an hour ago | parent [-]

> They are in the top tax bracket

They are not in the top bracket by choice - a luxury option unavailable to non-wealthy people in the working middle-class who actually are in the top tax bracket.

As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income.

0. Taxable events need be overhauled to cover loopholes, including removing tax-advantages of borrowing against securities. The legal fiction that allows rich people to spend money not recognized as income is deleterious.

1. Warren Buffet, IIRC, noted his assistant was in a higher tax bracket than him.

latency-guy2 an hour ago | parent [-]

> As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income.

There is no optimization for anything actually, its just income. There's lots of different forms of taxes that the US government takes part in as you know. Quitting your day job removes the income part until distribution/settlement for any owned assets.

You can argue for a wealth tax, but conflating two separate concepts is not how you do it.

overfeed 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

> You can argue for a wealth tax

My footnotes are the entirety of my argument, and it's not even as radical as a wealth tax. My argument has 2 easy steps:

1. Remove the arbitrage between actual liquidity events and the limited set of what the IRS currently considers taxable events. Borrowing against securities not being taxable is an example of what's broken. Arbitrage using trusts or LLCs needs to be deleted, based on controlling interests and/or ultimate beneficiary.

2. Align tax rates on capital gains vs. income

7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
wewtyflakes 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government.

WalterBright 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And if you take away their money, then who is going to fund the government and all those wealth redistribution programs?

laughing_man 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

There are US state governments discovering this right now. I would have thought it was obvious.

blanched 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right - and iirc the bottom of the 1% is somewhere around 700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion.

fsckboy 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion

that 700K is income, but the billion is assets.

earning 700K is the income from $10 million in the stock market (although working to earn $700K is in exchange for you time while the income from $10 mil is passive. OTOH people with the work ethic to earn like that tend to like what they do.

a billion in the stock market is $70 million a year, a large number but far from a billion.

TLDR: 700K compares to a billion 1 in 1000, but the truth is closer to 1 in 100

fsckboy 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government

you're overcorrecting WAY too far. Tax rate percentages are much higher on high income people, and THAT is why they pay most of the federal budget, it's forced generosity paying the government.

and it's actually the top 20% who dominate income and taxes, but including that extra 19% is important because that is the class of people ("coastal elites") who have a (all too human) tendency to rig the system in favor of their children in terms of good schools, universities, learning high status pasttimes, "internships" at prestigious institutions, rent paid in high value/opportunity areas after university etc. These high income people basically earn their livings from the 1%.

(that should not be interpreted as a pure sign of oligopoly, capitalist markets measure productivity, and that's how it works out, production in these industries is highly valued by the populace, but turnover of these people is high, where the top of the list is almost invariably new people each generation.)

hnav 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The top %1 is a strawman invented by the top 0.01%.

computerex 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except capitalism is a zero sum game. The two people you talk about that are multimillionaires are lucky. For each person you know that has made it, there are thousands of people that are equally as hardworking/talented but are destined to slum away for the rest of their lives.

All human beings deserve to live a happy life. We live in a world where few have accumulated more capital than they could ever spend in their lives while others starve to death.

I don't think anyone with a good moral conscience can support America's brand of capitalism. We live in a world where few live, the rest survive.

esafak 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Did you consider that people get rich by creating companies that afford people jobs? That is a positive sum game.

computerex 4 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
tennfown 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

Varelion 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As they should. Money boils down to a finite resource, and a class of people have been flaunting their theft of the working class since the famous balcony champagne image taken during Occupy Wallstreet.

That singular image should be the poster of this Epstein era.

laughing_man 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Theft? I don't see any indication of widespread theft. The fact that you don't make as much as you wish you were making doesn't make you a victim of theft.

WalterBright 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Money boils down to a finite resource

Musk more amply demonstrated how wealth is created.

Varelion 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, start by having enough to buy more influence with the right people, so they don't realize your assets are nowhere near a correct valuation.

laughing_man 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The idea SpaceX is where it is because he bought influence with the right people is fanciful thinking on the part of Musk's detractors.

WalterBright 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Musk turned $20,000 into a trillion. Only in America!

Varelion 6 hours ago | parent [-]

No.

zuzululu 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason there is cynicism around philanthropy by America's elite class is perhaps the obliviousness to the methods and means it is created and supported.

"Here is a few billion dollar to a non profit company I control but you better not write that in the article" or "I didn't care for social consequences, I was just another player, it was ultimately for you" vibes

it just doesn't have the impact it used to, ironically because then inflation was low and integrity/morality was rewarded as society.

I think Ray Dalio has done a fantastic job of mapping out the trajectory we are on. We've already started seen glimpse of it and I don't think its going to cool down. America and the West in general has growing fatigue with various elements and perhaps the biggest one is that of wealth gap disparity.

Perhaps a snapshot of where we are: The richer you get the more you need access and proximity to those that monopolized violence and pay protection money too. It's not unlike Italy in the 1800s, you need money to purchase and distribute violence to acquire more resources and eventually the gap gets too big, people can't afford bread, and they get bold.

Varelion 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You do not become a Billionaire without abusing and taking advantage of others. It would be foolish to think that anyone with that pattern of behavior would or could be philanthropic.

The one exception I had for this was Bill Gates.

Then I looked into the past behavior of Microsoft, and what he was going with Jeffery Epstein.

I no longer hold him as an exception.