Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by woah 2693 days ago
Why 400?
1 comments

Yeah, arbitrary cutoffs make me question things in statistical analysis. This isn't much different.

Why 400? Why Billionaires?

And think about it, with the wealth of 400 people a 331,194,000 person country's gov't programs, including a massive defense program, can be paid for for 7 months! That's a long time for .00012% of the population. The numbers are so big that the human brain just casually slides the scale logarithmically to ignore the sheer magnitude of wealth those 400 people hold!

Are you aware this would be just a one time 7 months ? The following years (decades) nothing. Or problably even a small negative impact (because those 400 will then for sure pay no taxes and do no charities).
Yes I understand that. Plundering the wealth of the rich is a terrible idea. It's a classic straw man:

Theory: We should tax the rich.

Straw-man: If we took the 400 richest people it would only fund the gov't for 7 months!

Accept Fallacy: Oh, then taxing the rich won't work!

Reject Fallacy: Ok, but there are more than 400 rich people, and no one is saying abolish taxes on everyone else. So perhaps there is a better balance, where those with incomes a certain multiple of local medians pay a higher progressive tax rate.

What I pointed out above was just the weird cutoff of 400 to arrive at 7 months. Why not a base 10? 100,1000,10000 richest. Or something like "The richest 674 people in America could fund it for 1 year" (made up numbers). When an arbitrary number is selected, I just get skeptical. Especially when it anchors to nothing else. What metric/group/club is there that top 400 American billionaires make up. Why do I care about 7 months?