[maciejzj]

I would say that we have now enough information to say that this sentiment (characteristic for some strata of american society) is simply not true:

1) Wealthy people account for more and more % of consumption (now about 50% in the US). Source by Federal Reserve via Bloomberg: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/capital-markets/top-10-of-earn....

2) "Investment in productive companies" now either goes to:

  a) financial instruments that exist for pure wealth extraction/multiplication in form of being a landlord, private equity, REITS, etc.

  c) stock market which is eaten by AI-adjacent companies which primary incentive is job displacement.

Neither of these seem to bring any >actual< benefit to the society in terms of living standards, health, food quality, personal independence, psychological well-being, stability, etc.

The idea that wealthy make decision beneficial to wider audience is as outdated as trickle-down economics. Both are false.

[simianwords]

1) you are damn right that top 10% consume as much as bottom 50 or whatever. Let’s be clear that taxing this bunch of people even more will have disastrous consequences. I’m okay with it if it works out. Top 10% includes everyone pretty much in HN.

2)

a) PE is owned mostly by pension firms that the public has a huge stake in. Billionaires have stake mostly in their own companies rather than in PE firms.

b) AI investment for job displacement is necessary for overall prosperity and efficiency.

[maciejzj]

> Let’s be clear that taxing this bunch of people even more will have disastrous consequences.

?

> Top 10% includes everyone pretty much in HN.

I would suggest you take more caution with statements like that. There are people who read this page and don't have much luck in life. And foremost, what does HN mean in the scale of society? Should HN commenters high five and carry one because the are not the bottom part of the society?

> AI investment for job displacement is necessary for overall prosperity and efficiency.

AI will boost efficiency at expanse of society. I will give you some random examples to ponder about, maybe it will touch some people hearts:

1) What will happen to hundreds of thousands of managers and office workers in the US and EU who built mortgages and families when economy recovered after COVID if AI wipes out their jobs?

2) What will happen to hundreds of thousands of people in English-speaking counties in Africa who earned they daily bread by providing remote help desk services when AI takes heir jobs?

3) What will happen to hundreds of thousand of CS grads in India whose family spent life savings to give them "good" education in Bangalore when AI takes their jobs?

These and many more changes happening rapidly all at once?

[atmavatar]

> Let’s be clear that taxing this bunch of people even more will have disastrous consequences.

Clearly, it's a good thing that literally every US tax law passed in the last half-century has reduced taxes on the wealthy then.

I don't think anyone's asking to return to the pre-Reagan era where the top tax bracket was 90%, but rolling back some of the absurd tax cuts in the Bush and Trump eras only make sense, given how much they ratcheted up deficits while doing absolutely nothing to improve the economy.