[justforFranz]

I dunno. Does 95% beat getting shot?

BTW, your comment is yet another indication that Hacker News is infiltrated by people likely to be paid to post pro-hyper-rich propaganda. I mean, what's in it for you to oppose a more progressive tax rate except to prove your deep misunderstanding of the power of capitalism to push all the money to one corner?

So what if the rich pay for everything. Look, man. The poor have nothing. There's nothing left. They're not going to retire. They'll work until they drop dead. They don't get decent health care. They'll die from avoidable, treatable illness. And if conservative Congress had its way, there'd be less Medicaid. Oh, and now they want to take away the right to sue elderly nursing homes. At what point do you decide that torturing your fellow American is enough?

[TheAdamAndChe]

> your comment is yet another indication that Hacker News is infiltrated by... pro-hyper-rich propaganda.

Be careful here. It's one thing to disagree and to point out percieved logical fallacies. It's another thing to group everyone who disagrees with you into a category that you dismiss. People very easily form an us-vs-them mentality due to our tribal evolution, and this line of thinking has the potential to go down that path.

[tengbretson]

> I dunno. Does 95% beat getting shot?

I'm not thin-skinned enough to consider this a threat, but I do think its inflammatory enough to be in violation of HN's guidelines.

As for the accusations of astroturfing, I don't know what to say, but I hope this paranoia that is increasingly common on the internet goes away. It's downright unhealthy.

[Balero]

I didn't read this as a threat at all. It was quite bluntly put, but came across clearly to me as saying that the consequences of a small minority doing very well and the vast majority being worse off, is some sort of uprising. Such as the Russian or French revolutions. I'm pretty sure we all wouldn't like something like them to happen again.

I do agree with your point on the astro turfing, your comment didn't come across as one to me, but I have been noticing myself thinking "oh, this must be a paid for comment" more and more. I'm not sure if this is healthy skepticism or not.

On topic. I largely agree with both comments. The top 20% shouldn't be asked to even pay as much tax as they currently are. I like the idea of a progressive tax system, those with the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest burden. But this is clearly, to me, too much.

Additionally this shouldn't be fixed by lowering taxes. The top 20% shouldn't be in a position that they make so much more than the remaining 80%. We need to fix a system of work not paying enough, large companies exploiting workers and poor healthcare and education systems.

[tengbretson]

> We need to fix a system of work not paying enough, large companies exploiting workers and poor healthcare and education systems.

I think we're awfully close to agreement here. I'm hesitant to advocate attempting to engineer this by forcing higher pay. I just don't believe we can snap our fingers and collectively decide that the output of our workers is worth more than it is.

I don't know the exact problem or solution, but I believe that our technology has failed us. Our modern technological advancements have been laser-focused on displacing human labor, rather than enhancing it. We're making automated systems where the few human operators left at all are more replaceable and therefore less valuable. We need to find technological solutions where the combined output of automation and expertise of humans are leveraged together. That was what built the middle class in the first place. Not shaking down the wealthy.

[evanlivingston]

It feels like the underlying sentiment here is that wage should be a function of the value of labor. The issue I take with that is that capitalism is necessarily exploitative and culturally we have deep seated beliefs about the value of different classes of labor. Currently, those classes of labor that require the least "expertise" tend to be those that are the least compensated. I fail so see how technology can be leveraged to increase the quality of life of unskilled labor. That is, how can technology help put food on the table and clean water in the pipes of those that can't currently afford those things? Why does labor need to be enhanced? Is the current output of human and machine labor not more than enough to give everyone 2500 calories and healthcare and a home? Perhaps if technology could be of use it would be in the distribution of those goods that we already have but arnt finding their way to those that need them.

Why can't we snap our fingers and decide the output of workers is worth more than it is? We have many many dillusions of value. Value works by people collectively agreeing something is valuable, that's the history of value.

[jetrink]

I think he was referring to a violent revolution, not to you being shot in particular.

[resu_nimda]

I think both of you are largely grandstanding. You didn't make any effort to respond to the ethical meat of his post and instead fired back about why that person represents what's wrong with [HN/the internet/the world].

Why are you so focused on the tax burden stat? What is the significance or takeaway from that? Are you arguing that rich people's lives are being too adversely affected by their income taxes? Are you saying poor people should pay more taxes? Are you basically arguing the libertarian/objectivist view that the government shouldn't be meddling in free enterprise?

As others have argued, I would say that relative income tax burden alone is not a great indicator of much.

[mikestew]

I'm not thin-skinned enough to consider this a threat, but I do think its inflammatory enough to be in violation of HN's guidelines.

Oh, please. It would take some pretty thin skin to even remotely take this personally, rather than as a reference to The Revolution(tm). "First against the wall...", that kind of thing. And, personally, it's a statement worthy of a moment's thought or two, as I'm sure there's a breaking point. I just couldn't say where that might be. Perhaps a 95% top tax rate would forestall that for just a little bit.

[figers]

https://fee.org/articles/you-are-richer-than-john-d-rockefel...

[eregorn]

An article that starts off the disadvantages of living back in 1916 with how hard it would be to travel across the nation and the world seems a bit suspect.

In general I find these "you're better off poor now than rich in the past" articles really highlight how thick the author's bubble is.

[none_for_me_thx]

is it not true that you're better off poor now than rich 100 years ago? maybe the statement alone is reductive, but most of "these" articles give justification via examples, too.

[eregorn]

Sorry 'bout the delay. I didn't expect someone to even still be able to find the article after 5 hours much less reply to this.

Either way, the justifications are the point of my comment. He starts off with luxury homes being hard to travel between and traveling the world when many Americans don't travel internationally at all or even move out of their state.

I'd throw in that his first point was one I MOST agreed with all things considered. I can't deny A/C is important to all Americans, and basically makes the sunbelt hospitable to humans. And about 80% of Americans do fly so they might miss that (1) (however, should be noted about half fly less than once a year, it might be possible a lot of people only flew a long time ago in better times. I can't find the data though so that's the most I'll say).

For his other points:

Red Curry and Vindaloo Chicken? In a time where popping in the microwave or ordering fast food is at an all time high compared to preparing food or actually going out? A lot of people would be happy just to have a personal chef even if it's only local food.

The internet being gone? What a shame that people lose out on the largest source of depression in their lives! In 1916 you have the advantage of occupying yourself with activities modern society has stamped out, like English fox hunting or playing IRL Sims with a company town! Funny thing about that second part, since paternalism was already dead and towns in general was in decline, it kind of makes the argument that it would be better to be rich even further into the past.

Medicine's a bit of a wash. Modern Medicine is effective but you need to actually afford it in the first place. For a lot of people, it would just be a trade of actually having some treatment for not having as many vaccines. Speaking of which, 1916 was around the time anti-vaccination had lost in the original argument. Now its gaining steam again, so they might not even have that benefit soon. Dentistry is better, but its telling he only mentions the toothbrush. 22% actually floss, and its a bit telling the amount of people that getting a cavity before adulthood is the complement (2). I'd imagine a lot of people would be fine with dentures if it was still socially acceptable like it was in the past. They're already fine spending money to cosmetically have better teeth instead of actually taking care of them.

Overall, its a bit funny that, when you think about it, the article is basically written by a staunch right libertarian, but sounds like it was written for every stereotype of the "liberal coastal elite". Reminds me of that Popehat article where he realizes that while he's libertarian he's probably more "coastal elite" than the left overall.

[1]http://www.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx [2]http://www.statisticbrain.com/dental-hygiene-statistics/

[ZeroGravitas]

If we take this approach, then we should raise the taxes on the rich immensely. When they complain, we'll point out that they are richer than John D Rockefeller! How can they possibly complain about their lot in life after that case winning argument?

(Also, by spreading the wealth more evenly, society would likely progress faster. Less solid gold iPhones, more standard iPhones. Less Bugatti Veryons, more Tesla Model 3s.)