[temp10298385]

Seems that the most common retort in this thread is to hammer down on the principle that unrealised gains should not be taxed.

This is directly addressed in the article. Unrealised gains can still work as collateral for loans. The spending habits appear as if your unrealised gains were bonafide income. At what point does the distinction between wealth and income become arbitrary?

There seems to be a large amount of "missing the point" in this thread. As a wage labourer my wealth growth is significantly hampered by taxation. For the small group of people with net worth tied up in financial assets, taxation doesn't slow their growth in any meaningful capacity. If we ignore any ideological predispositions and instead simply ask what limit this system is approaching I think the answer seems terrifying.

A common sentiment here is that inequality is not a problem in and of itself. "How does Bezos wealth possibly impact me?". Having seen the difference in equality in Scandinavia, USA, and South Africa I would beg to differ. Inequality eats at a society at all levels. The rich I met in America seemed less happy than the poor in Sweden. In South Africa even more so.

[kristjansson]

> At what point does the distinction between wealth and income become arbitrary?

I think risk is the difference. Someone invested (esp. heavily in one name) who borrows against that holding to finance consumption is basically adding leverage to their position, increasing their risk in order to continue growing their investment. Since growth is a social good, that's incentivized. It becomes income when you take your chips off the table i.e. making that capital entirely private instead of investing alongside others.

The risk is less apparently in TFA since it, you know, focuses on 25 of the absolute wealthiest people in the world, any one of whom can finance any sort of consumption short of becoming a nation-state without impacting their position, borrowing or selling.

Whether _wealth_ inequality is so undesirable that it should be ameliorated even at the expense of growth is a policy conversation worth having, but equating change in wealth to income and arguing _income_ inequality doesn't really hold water, esp. for wealth primarily invested in public names

[temp10298385]

To clarify the intent of my original content, I'm referring to wealth vs income with regards to the obscenely wealthy. As you've pointed out, risk is generally very low for billionaires. The ELOCs that they utilize for credit have very generous terms as the sheer amount of assets all but guarantee that the debt can be serviced.

What I'm trying to get at is that while the distinction of wealth and income is very palpable for wage earners such as myself, it is less so for billionaires. Throughout my life my wealth will consist mostly of my primary residence and retirement portfolio. I can't really use that for my day to day consumption. But if a billionaire can get an ELOC against a portion of their stock portfolio and use it to purchase yachts, cars and whatever tickles their fancy then their wealth enables behaviour that renders the lack of liquidity irrelevant.

[somethingAlex]

Could you explain what you mean by inequality eats at society at all levels?

Obviously if inequality gets to a certain point, where you don't have a solid middle class anymore - that's problematic. I'm just curious about your stance because I too feel like Jeff being rich doesn't really make my life any worse.

[temp10298385]

It erodes social cohesion. When I went to elementary school in Sweden I shared a classroom with both a child that came to our country has a refugee and another whose parent sat in parliament. Different social classes intermingled frequently. While there are clear class divisions in Sweden, the distances are not so great. There is a sense of security that comes with a more equal society that I think can't be replicated by any other means. I think that once you've lived in a fairly equal society, though Scandinavia does have its shortcomings, it is hard to excuse inequality.

How does Bezos harm you? I don't want to put the blame squarely on his shoulders but I would like to point out an apparent dynamic. When a class of people are decoupled from the issues the majority faces the outcome is resentment. Recordbreaking growth for billionaires while many are suffering their most trying year to date is creating tension.

There is definitely a narrative that can explain why Bezos fortune is rightfully his down to the last cent and why he is a net positive in this world. And it wouldn't necessarily be incorrect. However you can't avoid the fact that his wealth is manifasted as unaccountable power. A society plagued by unaccountable power, which is what I believe that inequality ultimately is, is not healthy.

[dredmorbius]

There are a number of arguments, most are too extensive to fit concisely in an HN comment. Pointers to some might be useful.

At the extreme you have the "utility monster" or "freedom monster" problem. Existential Comics explores both graphically and entertainingly:

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/8

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/259

Much of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations actually addresses the issues of inequality and the dynamic between wealth and power: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." That's one of the shortest and most direct sentences in a book given to long and complex writing.

The Spirit Level is a book-length exploration of the problems of inequality and highly-unequal societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/spirit-level-why-equality-is-...

Thomas Picketty's works (Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Capital and Ideology) fit into this discussion.

Oxfam have a set of suggestions as well, notably Branko Milanovic's The Haves and the Have-Nots:

https://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/three-must-read-b...