DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
59% Positive
Analyzed from 4347 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#wealth#tax#homeless#more#income#money#taxes#state#wealthy#inequality
Discussion (114 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I also live in a wealthy West-Coast New-World city, and attributing these phenomena to pathological inequality badly misdiagnoses the problem. Most visibly homeless people in wealthy west coast cities are severely mentally ill in ways that prevent them from living a normal life or even living peacefully with other people without some kind of institutionalization, which local authorities are reluctant to do because there's no nice way to institutionalize people.
In some places, it's possible for people with a moderate amount of dsyfunction to be able to scrape together enough resources in order to rent cheap, low-quality housing; but in wealthy west coast cities there is a massive housing shortage that is downstream of decades of underbuilding, so all types of housing are very expensive. The underbuilding was and is mostly driven by large numbers of middle-class homeowners who primarily care about the negative externalities of construction and density affecting the place where they live and own their own homes.
Neither of these problems has much to do with extremely wealthy people, or wealth inequality in a general sense.
Agree on the underbuilding.
I don't know if we should call this inability to make basic, smart financial decisions a mental illness or not, but it's something. And these 2 people aren't/weren't even what I would consider visibly homeless. At least as long as you didn't see them living in their car behind a convenience store.
Starting with the framing that housing is just too expensive makes the problem simple. You build more housing, or you subsidize housing for these people, or somehow just inject money into services for them so they can get back on their feet. But if that's not the core issue for some or many of these people, how do you actually help these people? How does a society help people who are incapable of handling their own finances? That's where the hard questions begin.
Non-mentally I'll homeless people are rarely "street people". They live in a car or with friends or in a shelter. Plenty of them have jobs.
There is indeed a spectrum of homelessness from temporarily distressed to broken beyond repair. There's different actions for the different factions.
I live in the Portland OR metro and believe that the issue has spawned the Homeless Industrial Complex that thrives on extracting money to "help" but are incentivized to keep the problem going for their livelihood.
I'm not unsympathetic to their plight (I had been effectively homeless a couple times in my life). It bothers me to no end how this problem is mismanaged.
IIRC, most people who obtain "homeless" status only keep it for a short time, and don't live on the streets during that time.
You'll get very different statistics if you count transitions into (or out of) homelessness over some window, vs systematic point-in-time counts of current homeless status, vs point-in-time counts of people camping on the street, vs trying to measure QALYs.
What data have you seen which doesn't support it?
"Requiring hospitalization more than once a month, on multiple occasions in a year".
And that number, per HUD, is 22%.
If you want to look at "untreated mental illness" in the homeless, now you're above 50%.
You see this question a lot when discussing drug usage among homeless. The percentages of addicts is undeniably high; we know this from point in time counts, for example. Some people take that as proof that homelessness is the fault of the homeless: they made the bad decision to take drugs, and that’s why they lost their jobs. But there’s also a lot of data showing that people are more likely to become addicted as a way to cope with street life.
And if, in fact, losing your home is something that can happen relatively easily in part because of wealth inequality, we’re right back to the original assertion.
Underbuilding is for sure another factor. It’s just not the only one.
Sources? This just sounds like cope from a wealthy individual who wants to feel better about not helping the problem.
That said, my experience in a urban area on the west coast has given me many examples that support this notion that it's not just a housing problem. Indeed many of the local governments own attempts to house the unhoused fail in no small part because the unhoused create conditions incompatible with staying housed.
Furthermore there is a steady drip of examples in regional news that raise serious questions about the efficacy if not motivations of the judiciary, politicians, law enforcement and local beuracracies charged with addressing the problem.
I do believe that housing costs are a major part of the problem but I also believe that treating the population as if they have no obligations to society is a major and fatal mistake to the whole enterprise. For one the policy approach has invited contagion by not addressing the population of unhoused that cannot or will not uphold the most basic aspects of the social contract. For two, it turns away a large number of people that would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause.
Is that _why_ they're homeless? And are you aware of "drug induced schizophrenia?"
> which local authorities are reluctant to do because there's no nice way to institutionalize people.
There are no _cheap_ ways to do it. There are _tons_ of nice ways to do it.
> so all types of housing are very expensive.
And you're speaking of an area that has weather patterns that are conducive to living outside.
> Neither of these problems has much to do with extremely wealthy people, or wealth inequality in a general sense.
Immediately? No. Proximally? Yes. Obviously.
I think there are many practical ways to solve it, and would love to see more proposals out there. Instead I tend to see nihilism or division.
Exceptions to this rule come about for specific reasons. Before the industrial revolution, there just wasn't that much power to go around. Everyone was working their land for sustenance, and the rent-seeking nobility extracted some percent of production because that's what there was to extract. When the industrial revolution came, those who figured out how to exploit it became the new nobility and worked their employees to the bone. It was only after actual, bloody, war between the factory owners and the employees that we got labor rights, which were a truce agreement. And that agreement's been steadily declining since Reagan. It took a while because the beneficiaries of the labor rights era were able to hold onto their wealth and pass it down to their children, but now we're back in the same factory feudalism situation again, but with different technological status.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Not that above commentator is meaning that.
But many "thought leaders" i.e. Jordan Petersen play around with similar motte-and-bailey - "hierarchies are natural" (examples with lobsters, apes, whatever) --> "existing hierarchies should be preserved" (not defended in the argument but implied).
Probably some downvoters are reacting to the structural similarity, although taken in good faith i think above commenter makes a fine point about the historical pattern of periods of equality being short lived and brought about by great intentional effort while sliding back to inequality seems to occur all of the time.
Until the black death came in the 1300's and killed an estimated 30–60% of Europe's population, and now the nobility had nobody to rent seek or even to work their land.
So then, for the first time ever, the surviving workers gained bargaining power as landowners (lords) competed for labor, leading to high cash wages, better working conditions, and more freedom for peasants, because the feudal lords hadn't yet figured out how to replace the peasants with slaves, H1-Bs and illegals from across the planet.
So according to history, including your post-WW1 example, the only times peasants gained bargaining power was when millions of them died through world wars and global pestilence.
Looking at recent unfolding history, "There's something very familiar about all this" -Biff Tannen
I think almost everybody would be better off if taxes were something like 1% of total assets rather than off the top of your income.
No thanks. Any discussion about tax reform has to start with government spending otherwise it's not serious. Nobody wants to give away a slice of their net worth to pay for bullshit wars and ballrooms.
The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income. Your complaint isn't relevant to the discussion of wealth vs income taxes.
-----
But I'm not sure if your historical claims are accurate. I believe a lot of taxes were a fraction of the expected yield of land, which is more complicated than just "taxing wealth vs. income". Yes, the taxes would go up if you owned more land, which sounds like a tax on wealth. But the imputed tax base would be based on historical yields (income) because the quality of the soil would vary (which also could be construed as a tax on wealth because higher quality soil meant land might be worth more per acre). It was also based on the weather during that growing season, if yields were down in that area then taxes would be lower that year, which sounds more like an income tax than a wealth tax.
You also said "its only been about 120 years since wealth and income were different":
The Christian tithe that became de jury under Charlemagne in 779 A.D. was a strict 10% tax on land yield each year (~income tax) but other empires and lords used fixed quotas (~wealth tax), and records exist that these could have brutal effects during years where weather resulted in lower yields.
There was the 600-year long sales tax on salt in France, which definitely wasn't a wealth tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabelle
In 1899 the UK instituted a 10% levy on annual incomes over ÂŁ200, with a graduated rate for incomes between ÂŁ60 and ÂŁ200. Income taxes had a hiatus from 1816-1842 but has been permanent since the "Income Tax Act of 1842".
The Mit'a (Inca Empire, Pre-1532) taxed individuals "time". Which I think most people would consider kind of an income tax - it's literally paid in labor. Adult men had to spend a certain number of days each year working on state projects - like building roads, farming state lands, or fighting in the army. They didn't have currency. Their economy was based on centralized planning, labor taxation (mit'a), and state redistribution of goods.
The Saladin Tithe taxed revenues at 10% in 1188.
We also have mountains of loopholes through all of these.
If you can afford a tax attourney your outcomes will be far better than those who cannot.
The problem is, and always will be, what happens to me is I am out of work. No one wants to force people to liquidate assets they might need to work, live, etc in order to pay an asset tax.
Then you get to the dividing line of, but what about the ultra wealthy? Well, sure, but then you write an insanely obtuse tax code to try and capture that wealth while leaving everyone else alone and the targets are highly motivated to find loopholes.
Progressives intuitively understand that it’s not worth the hassle to try and means test entitlements yet seem to miss the fact that trying to manage a confiscatory bureaucracy would have the same issues.
It would be a cat and mouse game but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Like how funding the IRS appropriately increases government revenue.
It would be a huge waste though. We should probably spend it on food, education, and healthcare instead.
Wealth is farms, factories, skills, etc. How would destroying all that improve anyone's life?
Wealth isn't money. It exists independent of any currency you can use to give it notional value.
Perhaps we could also engage in less ill considered military adventurism as well? Causing a domestic affordability crisis as a distraction and a salve for one's ego seems like a bad idea.
Ironically, it's already incredibly dire. People are stupid -- it's crazy making to watch this play out.
E.g., if I have no noticeable tax on my wealth as I create impact for the world through my companies I'm going to keep being the one person in charge of that (to achieve my mission of reaching mars, etc.). But if I'm going to get nicked (to the tune of billions of dollars even at 2% etc), on average I'm going to redeploy my assets via people I trust in the company etc. I might even invest more in public welfare projects. It is fair arguably that there is this forcing function because one's value accrues from those projects originally. So there is an elegant symmetry at the end too.
It would be unfair to tax billionaires more if they truly worked in a vacuum and provided value to the economy through very few dependencies. But that's never the case. And right now too much excess is spent on things like these sport teams via inherited wealth etc.
Your accountant can clarify the difference.
Likelt has to do with not having any property or wealth taxes, but having modest incone taxes that were rigorosly collected
Either we make significant change whilst we still have some capacity to reason, or we consign ourselves to the fate of animals, following our impulse gradients to the places they invariably lead.
I don't expect Social Security (or my country's equivalent) to exist in anything like its current form when I'm old enough to retire. This is the last hurrah and it's shocking how we're pulling out all the stops to make it happen.
[1] https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advi...
Fiscal policy all about adjusting those levers (how much, and where, the government injects money into the economy, and how much, and where, the government extracts it back out) in order to promote the society we want to have.
Oh more than half. In France it's 59% officially. And then there are the fake "private" companies that are actually owned by french-state apparatchiks and operating like the various state monopolies (like utility companies): so the real number is higher than 59%. France has probably more than 2/3rd of its GDP that is public spending. It's basically a planned economy.
A planned economy with the only expected result of a planned economy: the public debt of France is 115% of the GDP growing. Inflation is through the roof (you think gas prices are high in the US?). And they have zero clue as to how they're going to pay their empty promises of pensions to the aging population.
But what's really amazing in a country like France where 2/3rd of the GDP is public spending is this: publications constantly hammer the exact same message as in TFA: "We should tax the rich!". The french Piketty (who's btw never worked for a second in the private sector in his life: a pure product from the socialist french education system who's exceptionally good at creating state-lovers ever begging for more taxes) is mentioned in TFA.
2/3rd of the GDP being public spendings but instead of trying to get out of that planned economy the message hammered by all the media (who are either owned by the media of by the french-state apparatchiks) is: "Tax the rich".
The delicious irony of the 3 first of the only 5 companies France has in the Top 100 by market cap (and none in the Top 50) being three companies selling luxury goods and bringing money into France by selling luxury products outside of France is of course not lost on people.
There's LVMH, L'Oreal and Hermes exporting like mad luxury products and bringing in money from overseas into France and, instead of giving the people owning these companies medals, France explains that you should "tax the rich".
Yeah. But no. I just don't buy it.
I'd rather be poor in a capitalistic society than live as a slave in a planned communist economy.
"Better dead than red" FWIW too.
And if you read the article you will see his mention of the wealthy that are advocating for higher taxes/better wealth distribution and explicitly says that not all wealthy are The Enemy.
This is the main lesson of the 20th century that liberals refuse to accept; that the state is controlled by capitalist class interests. Capitalist democracy is a curated racket.
And even if we were to force legislation exactly as described above it can't and hasn't lasted long due to the incentives ($billions) to undo it. They will go as far as to kill people for this, and they have.
Legislation does NOT fundamentally change existing power relations. They have this shit in their pockets and you're just saying that we should have them take it out of their pockets.
The western allergy towards Marxism is one of the most detrimental cultural positions the working class has EVER faced.
It didn't just "lose", it killed millions of its own people in the process. Having been born in a communist state, I'd rather clean toilets in American than do anything else in the USSR.
Edit: It's basically impossible to communicate the day-to-day misery and deprivation of late stage Communism without sounding like a crazy person. My parents were both university-educated professionals but we lived in a tiny, one-bedroom apartment with occasional hot running water and only newspaper for wiping after the bathroom. This was considered a rather affluent existence.
To find something similar in today's America you'd have to go to the worst, most impoverished parts of town and even then...
So it's just not fair, your comparisons. You're not looking at the whole picture.