[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.