Most active commenters
  • bluecalm(5)
  • GardenLetter27(4)
  • twoodfin(4)
  • disgruntledphd2(3)

←back to thread

131 points Traces | 46 comments | | HN request time: 1.432s | source | bottom
1. GardenLetter27 ◴[] No.44442352[source]
This is the wrong way to look at the issue.

The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it.

These countries should focus on encouraging investment there - by getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape, make it possible to hire across the whole EU a lot easier, without needing separate tax registration in every country, etc.

Lower the barriers to entry wherever possible - no long application processes for developments with endless consultations, no arbitrary minority language or qualification requirements, etc.

Income inequality is a good thing, but there needs to be equal access to education and opportunities and the lowest barriers to entry possible.

replies(14): >>44442388 #>>44442405 #>>44442407 #>>44442409 #>>44442410 #>>44442415 #>>44442417 #>>44442418 #>>44442480 #>>44442484 #>>44442538 #>>44442782 #>>44443449 #>>44443571 #
2. bestouff ◴[] No.44442388[source]
> Income inequality is a good thing

That's your opinion. I fail to see how the differences were have today make sense and could be good for the society.

replies(1): >>44442427 #
3. Hikikomori ◴[] No.44442405[source]
Trickle down has never worked.
replies(1): >>44442464 #
4. tamat ◴[] No.44442407[source]
so you want to help the rich so they can be richer...
5. regentbowerbird ◴[] No.44442409[source]
> The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it.

The specific issue here is that revenue from capital is taxed less than revenue from labor, thus disproportionally impacting the poor & middle class.

Can you explain how taxing the rich even less will solve this issue?

replies(1): >>44442462 #
6. tsimionescu ◴[] No.44442410[source]
> The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it.

Yes, mostly in the pockets of politicians who make sure to keep them super-rich.

This is why wealth inequality is a disaster: it allows the super-rich to control entire countries and keep themselves and their families rich and powerful.

Any kind of economic measure that still permits billionaires to exist is not going to address this simple fundamental problem. It's at best lipstick on the pig, not a long term solution to anything.

replies(1): >>44442581 #
7. imiric ◴[] No.44442415[source]
This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals.

Rich people will and should continue to exist. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is take advantage of loopholes and tax breaks just because they're wealthy. That alone should indirectly lead to lowering inequality, and, assuming we can trust that governments work efficiently and in equal interest of all their citizens (which is hardly a given), it should lead to a fair(er) distribution of wealth, instead of a growth of inequality.

In any case, it's easy to be cynical about this news, but it's a step in the right direction on paper. In stark contrast to what is happening in the US, for example.

replies(1): >>44442791 #
8. aredox ◴[] No.44442417[source]
They invest and then they extract ridiculous rents from their investments - leading to widespread burnout, perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns, empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent, excessive appartement rents, etc.

And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich.

Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many.

replies(2): >>44442516 #>>44442626 #
9. lordleft ◴[] No.44442418[source]
Is this not the same trickle down mantra that has been pushed across developed countries for decades and has only widened the gap between rich and poor? In the US, where this line was pursued since the 80s, real wages for most Americans have stagnated while the top 20% have seen their wealth increase astronomically. Merely improving the regulatory and investment climate for a country does not magically benefit most citizens in a society -- thoughtful taxation is one to correct that.
replies(2): >>44442511 #>>44442584 #
10. newsclues ◴[] No.44442427[source]
Take the global wealth, divide it by the population, and redistribute it evenly.

Suddenly a lot of productive assets are no longer working.

Do you think capital allocation will be better when it's being done by everyone?

replies(1): >>44442532 #
11. GardenLetter27 ◴[] No.44442462[source]
Then the solution is to cut taxes on income, and cut government spending.

Ideally there'd just be a 10% tax across the board - sales tax, income tax, etc. like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%939%E2%80%939_Plan

No complicated exemptions, or complicated progressive bands, just keep it simple and eliminate bureaucracy. Then people can manage their own pensions and insurance.

This could be accompanied by a Georgist Land Value Tax to encourage development and innovation too.

replies(2): >>44442512 #>>44442641 #
12. abenga ◴[] No.44442464[source]
Any day now.

or

We are not trying it hard enough.

13. johnecheck ◴[] No.44442480[source]
I don't think some heavy handed communist system should try to abolish all inequality either.

But does that mean income inequality is good?

Maybe in moderation, but I feel it's pretty obviously harmful when taken to an extreme. Policies to reverse the trend of concentrating wealth and power are worth considering.

14. Rygian ◴[] No.44442484[source]
> getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape

90% of bureaucracy and red tape are Chesterton Fences that exist for a reason.

Remove those fences while being clear and transparent about who they protect and how they will be exposed.

Be aggressive about the remaining 10%.

And good luck telling which is which.

15. ◴[] No.44442511[source]
16. notrealyme123 ◴[] No.44442512{3}[source]
thats way more than currently most working jobs get taxed, and way less than returns for invested money gets taxed (at least when using "smart" tax strategies).

So yes, tax the rich +1

17. GardenLetter27 ◴[] No.44442516[source]
The housing crisis isn't due to investment, but onerous government regulation that makes it near impossible to build - decades-long planning processes, dozens of consultations (local public, and NGOs, etc.)

That's exactly what I mean by removing bureaucratic processes to unlock investment.

But the "many" can learn useful skills and innovate to also make a lot of money. Everyone should be able to start a business easily - without excessive capital requirements or expensive notaries. STEM education should be free and widely available (or with very low interest loans if we let the loan interest be decided per subject, per student grades, etc.)

replies(1): >>44443207 #
18. johnecheck ◴[] No.44442532{3}[source]
Bad take. Obviously if you you cut a factory into a million pieces and hand them out, you've lost value.

Investment tools cover all your concerns here. (Hopefully paired with a regulatory framework that prevents scams (looking at you, crypto))

replies(1): >>44446276 #
19. samiv ◴[] No.44442538[source]
This is wrong.

The rich people are stiffling the economy and displacing a large swath of working people. This process will hollow out the economy and produce more poverty and more inequality.

For the wealthy people there are two ways to invest.

1. Invest in passive assets such as stock market, property, valuable items, gold etc. 2. Invest in new businesses.

What are they doing? Mostly 2. How do we know. Simple.. look at the real economies. The western economies are growing (barely) at around 1-2% per year. The wealthy (since pandemic) grow their wealth at 10-20% per year. Where is this growth coming from? Certainly not from new business development since the real economy is not growing. The only way it can come is by taking a bigger slice of the pie, i.e. displacing middle class by subsuming their wealth.

This is harmful to the economy and will lead to the collapse of the economy and the society.

replies(2): >>44442559 #>>44442866 #
20. GardenLetter27 ◴[] No.44442559[source]
You are right that the problem is a lack of economic growth - and that is what must be addressed, e.g. by removing bureaucracy and harmful regulations.

Robert Zubrin's The Case For Nukes is a great book on this.

replies(1): >>44442644 #
21. bluecalm ◴[] No.44442581[source]
Politicians are cheap. You don't have to be super-rich to buy them. Corrupt undemocratic parliamentary systems we have in EU are a huge problem but getting rid of super rich won't solve them.
22. twoodfin ◴[] No.44442584[source]
The median American household has a >30% higher real income today than in 1985.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Personal income is up more than 50%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

And that doesn’t account for demographic changes: Households are smaller on average than 40 years ago and there’s been a significant surge in the foreign-born population, mostly from much poorer origins.

Further, while the inflation calculation includes some hedonic adjustments, it’s really hard to capture the aggregate of the thousands of diffuse lifestyle benefits of living in 2025 v. 1985. Personally, I’d miss burritos.

replies(1): >>44443037 #
23. bluecalm ◴[] No.44442626[source]
>> perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns

Sounds like an opportunity to me.

>>empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent

Sounds like a problem land value tax solves - it should cost you to hold land ad if you can't pay you should give it up so others can make use of it.

>> excessive appartement rents

Sounds like land value tax + removing bureaucracy around building should solve that.

>>And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich.

I am not sure why you think anything in EU is along wishes of super-rich. It seems to me it's to the wishes of political cronies. I can guarantee you that "super-rich" would structure it differently.

>>Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many.

And yet populist parties introducing anti-business policies win all the time. It's true our parliamentary systems are terrible and undemocratic but it's not because super rich, at least not in EU.

24. ur-whale ◴[] No.44442641{3}[source]
> Ideally there'd just be a 10% tax

With the added value that it mechanically keeps governments lean and fit, instead of the bloated, taxpayer money wasting leeches that they are in most socialist countries.

Socialism, a.k.a. a picture perfect example of the maxim "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions".

High taxes that supposedly lead to social justice via re-distribution of wealth ALWAYS end up driving countries into the same ditch: gross abuse of public money making the poorest part of the population suffer the most.

Look at Venezuela, California and Cuba for perfect examples. Spain is not far ahead of them, check out their sovereign debt in case you have a doubt, and how many times they've had to be bailed out.

And if you have doubts that low taxes lead to healthier societies, it is indeed possible, I'd invite you to take a look at Switzerland, where taxes are super low, the institutions work like well-oiled Swiss watches, crime is quasi non-existent, infrastructures work, corruption is one of the lowest in the world and - yes - there are filthy rich people (who gives two fucks if they're rich? As long as your life is good. Unless jealousy of course.) but the so-called "poor people" in Switzerland have a way better life than most supposedly rich people in the rest of the world.

replies(1): >>44442878 #
25. samiv ◴[] No.44442644{3}[source]
The bureaucracy and the regulation isn't the problem by and large. If anything it just needs to be easier and more automated to navigate the regulation when setting up business.

I know that the capitalist really like to sing this song. "It's the regulation, just let us self regulate and we'll create so and so many jobs".

Yeah, just like they did in the 1800 hundreds. Abysmal working conditions, minimum pay, toxic waste dumping etc. etc.

Or how the banking sector has managed to blow up several times since "deregulation" in the -80s by Reagan. 2008 market crash anyone?

The problem is that there's less and less purchasing power. Even if you have a proven business case such as hairdressing or serving food your most important asset is a customer base who have money. You start by putting money in the pockets of the people and suddenly all kinds of lucrative markets and business ideas become viable.

The regulation is needed to protect the society from all the harmful shorcuts that businesses would otherwise take. Such as poisonous food, toxic waste dumping, ponzi schemes and insider trading etc. etc.

26. modo_mario ◴[] No.44442782[source]
Investment can be rentseeking. I can invest in buying a house to rent out raising housing prices and preventing someone else from owning it for themselves.
27. bluecalm ◴[] No.44442791[source]
>>This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals.

Sounds like you want to tax assets. Every country can start doing it right now with assets on their soil. No "global registry of wealthy people" is needed for that. Just look at the assets you control and tax them.

replies(2): >>44442829 #>>44442838 #
28. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44442829{3}[source]
Yeah, this is possible. At an EU level it would probably work. It would be even more effective in the US because they charge tax on global income for citizens, regardless of residence.
29. consp ◴[] No.44442838{3}[source]
Assets can be easily hidden by elaborate constructions over multiple nations, if you have the money to finance it you can save millions with it. Is it legal? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it something desirable to society? No. This is why you need a registry.
replies(1): >>44442925 #
30. bluecalm ◴[] No.44442866[source]
>>The western economies are growing (barely) at around 1-2% per year. The wealthy (since pandemic) grow their wealth at 10-20% per year.

Imagine you are in Germany:

-you have a business that has modest profitability of 4% per year (profit/company value)

-your economy grows 1-2% per year

-your inflation is 2% per year

How much do you expect the company value to increase after a year? Right, it's 8 % - exactly how much DAX (German stock index) grew on average during last 10 years.

31. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44442878{4}[source]
> With the added value that it mechanically keeps governments lean and fit, instead of the bloated, taxpayer money wasting leeches that they are in most socialist countries.

OK great, what do you want to cut?

Generally, it's about 25% on education, 25% on welfare, 25% on health and then everything else is another 25%. Which of those things do you want to cut?

Education is generally net positive as you need future taxpayers to pay for your pension, health could be privatised but then you'll have lots of avoidable deaths, one could additionally cut welfare but then you're basically hurting poor and old people, or cut everything else which means no roads or public transport which seems less than good.

I think the big misconception people have around taxation is that some level of government revenue makes the entire economy much more productive. Is there waste? Yeah, of course, but it tends to be much lower than in the private sector.

replies(1): >>44443129 #
32. bluecalm ◴[] No.44442925{4}[source]
What assets? Land can't be moved, company offices can't be moved. Just tax what you control and let others tax what they control. Why do you care if I have a pile of gold stored in Barbados. It doesn't influence your country in any way.
33. myrmidon ◴[] No.44443037{3}[source]
Sure, but a median house cost 3.5 years of (median) income in 1985, nowadays its 6. It sure is nice being able to afford tons of foreign-built electronic trash, but affording a home seems more relevant and important to me and by that metric things got worse.
replies(2): >>44443450 #>>44443686 #
34. ur-whale ◴[] No.44443129{5}[source]
First: gee, I wonder how the Swiss do it.

To your points:

>OK great, what do you want to cut?

The answer is largely dependent on the country you're talking about. But the generic answer: cut waste. That includes inefficiencies, duplication of effort, crazy useless shit the government wastes money on (see the unreal crap DOGE unearthed in the US for example), downright corruption. And when that's all said and done, cut every department budget equally by 50% the first year. When you deal with a parasite like most governments are on the planet, less food means a way more efficient and smaller parasite.

> Education ...

Your not getting my point. This is not about picking winners and losers in the belly of the beast. This is about reducing drastically the size of government overall. Period.

Now if you want to pick apart winners and losers, sure, let's do this ...

In in ideal world, a government should stick to regal functions: externals security (army), internal security (police), justice (enforcement of laws, property and contracts). End of story.

If you believe that including things like health, education and welfare in the R&R of govt is a good idea (I don't, it creates monopolies, which are inherently corrupt inefficient), fine.

In that case, make sure they're properly starved (small budgets) so they operate at maximum efficiency, decentralized so even if they're taxpayer funded there's at least a modicum of competition to keep them meritocratic, honest and efficient.

> Education is generally net positive as you need future taxpayers to pay for your pension

In countries where retirement management was designed like a ponzi scheme (new investors buy in so early investors can benefit), and where the age pyramid looks like a freaking Christmas tree, you would unfortunately be correct. In a properly designed retirement system, this is utter BS.

Retirement system should only be minimally mutualized. In an honest retirement system, you should mostly rely on what you have set aside during your work life, 401k style. And certainly not pray that there will be, 50 years down the road enough of the same suckers you are now to pay for your sustenance. When people stop making babies, guess who's going to be left holding the bag? You. That's who.

> Is there waste? Yeah, of course, but it tends to be much lower than in the private sector.

I'd love to see the data backing this claim.

But if we're talking impressions, my observation after a rather long life is the exact opposite: the private sector is far, far more efficient than governments except when corporations get to monopoly status and essentially become mini-governments (via crony capitalism) and with the exact same illnesses.

replies(2): >>44444653 #>>44453034 #
35. cloverich ◴[] No.44443207{3}[source]
Investment in sfh definitely plays a major role. It's not an either or situation. Build more houses. Make SFH investment homes unprofitable. Both will increase the homes on the market, lowering prices.
36. exiguus ◴[] No.44443449[source]
Actually, there are plans to tax international investments at 1% [1] (i.e., making more money with money). This will basically stop bets on currency or commodities on the stock exchanges. Besides that, inheritance and wealth tax are also interesting fields for a regulation.

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm

37. qeternity ◴[] No.44443450{4}[source]
This is not a result of income inequality. This is a result of measures intended to reduce income inequality, which of course almost universally make things worse.

The other lending that the US (and Western governments in general) massively subsidize is education. And look at what has happened to the cost of housing and education. They have both massively exceeded general rates of inflation.

The cure is worse than the disease.

38. usrusr ◴[] No.44443571[source]
We've seen effectively zero interest rates for longer than many can remember. If there's no investment it's not because of lack of capital but because of lack of optimism. When generationally rich do invest in something outside the safe game of landlordship (which is primarily defined by limited supply making chart lines point northeast just by merit of more capital joining the game) it's usually not because of n aeed or greed, but because they already have so much invested in the easy game that they feel a desire to risk some tiny fraction of it in something more exciting.
39. twoodfin ◴[] No.44443686{4}[source]
Now we’re moving from broad income & wealth to a very specific good in housing.

Yes, housing supply should be much more abundant. The constraint on supply has not been the 1%, but government regulation through zoning and environmental restrictions.

This is belatedly being recognized and addressed in a shockingly bipartisan manner for now.

But also worth noting that the median home today is much larger and nicer than in 1985. Interest rates have (even today) been low enough—and incomes high enough—that ownership rates for these bigger, better homes are a few ticks higher than 40 years ago, as well.

replies(2): >>44444909 #>>44448569 #
40. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44444653{6}[source]
> In in ideal world, a government should stick to regal functions: externals security (army), internal security (police), justice (enforcement of laws, property and contracts). End of story.

OK, so you want a 19th century government. That's a position that one can hold, but (unfortunately or fortunately) this is never gonna get voted for, so unless you're also against democratic voting, you should probably think about how to accomplish some of your goals in a society that actually can exist today.

> And when that's all said and done, cut every department budget equally by 50% the first year.

OK great, how do you choose who lives and dies? Cos that's basically what a 50% cut across the board will mean. Personally, I like that people without as much money as me don't starve to death on the side of the street, but obviously opinions differ.

> In an honest retirement system, you should mostly rely on what you have set aside during your work life, 401k style.

OK great, so your proposition is that poor old people should just die?

> And certainly not pray that there will be, 50 years down the road enough of the same suckers you are now to pay for your sustenance. When people stop making babies, guess who's going to be left holding the bag? You. That's who.

This is basically all developed world social security systems, so you're proposing again, that poor old people should starve to death on the side of the street.

More likely, what will actually happen here is that the voters (most of whom are poor) will vote themselves confiscatory taxes on people who have saved. And that's the better option! The worse one is that they'll just bring back the guillotine.

Note: I apologise for the potential emotionalisation of your points, but it's important to keep people aware of all the consequences of approaches like this.

While I definitely think that lots and lots of state problems exist, and could be fixed, I reckon that in many cases fixing these problems will require insourcing a bunch of work to the public sector. Good examples of where this would probably work are in constructing tendering and design, as well as software tendering and esign.

> But if we're talking impressions, my observation after a rather long life is the exact opposite: the private sector is far, far more efficient than governments except when corporations get to monopoly status and essentially become mini-governments (via crony capitalism) and with the exact same illnesses.

Having spent a bunch of my career in public sector orgs and the rest in the private sector all I can say is that they're about equally inefficient and stupid, just in different ways.

> I'd love to see the data backing this claim.

I'd love to see data backing your claims of the stupendous waste in government, but we can't always get what we want, I suppose.

41. myrmidon ◴[] No.44444909{5}[source]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not even disputing your main point-- I do agree that things have gotten better for the average American over the last decades.

Though I still think that longer-term inflation adjustment (CPI based comparisons even more so) always warrant a critical look.

> Yes, housing supply should be much more abundant. The constraint on supply has not been the 1%, but government regulation through zoning and environmental restrictions.

I'm not buying the whole "regulation is to blame for rising housing costs" at all. If it was, I would expect countless "housing havens": states/nations in the US/Europe with "correct regulation" and housing costs at least staying stable over the last decades: But I don't see those.

My take on this is that this is mainly a consequence of the Baumol effect; local-labor intensive products like houses, childcare, education suffer from strongly rising costs because wages increased generally; regulation cant/wont magically solve this.

But if you just compare wage development itself, things look much better over time than they actually are for the average person, because you omit this effect from your consideration by design.

So things actually improved much less for the average American than a first glance at your numbers suggests.

replies(1): >>44446116 #
42. twoodfin ◴[] No.44446116{6}[source]
This chart I stumbled across yesterday at least matches my anecdotal understanding that, yes, there are places like Houston and Minneapolis where in fact what you’re looking for has happened, because supply has been allowed to rise to meet growing demand:

https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1940111174722326580

43. Jensson ◴[] No.44446276{4}[source]
> Investment tools cover all your concerns here.

Nope, since you decided that investments can't make you richer investment tools no longer works.

And if investments are allowed to make you richer you didn't solve wealth inequality, because most people will just spend and consume rather than invest in anything.

44. const_cast ◴[] No.44448569{5}[source]
> Now we’re moving from broad income & wealth to a very specific good in housing.

Housing is pretty much the cornerstone of American society. It's the one thing the middle class has done to increase their wealth and security. It's not just a specific good - it's the poster-child of the American dream and American prosperity.

replies(1): >>44449696 #
45. twoodfin ◴[] No.44449696{6}[source]
If you want to build your entire assessment of economic progress around the ratio of home prices to incomes, well, OK.

Obviously policymakers haven’t over-focused on that number, and to some extent that’s a big mistake that is hopefully now being corrected.

But it’s one number, and doesn’t even tell the story of housing affordability, let alone the state of the economy for the median citizen.

46. regentbowerbird ◴[] No.44453034{6}[source]
> see the unreal crap DOGE unearthed in the US for example

I'm surprised to see DOGE referenced as a source in jul 2025, are the savings from that particularly significant?

Only a fraction is actually accounted for: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o

DOGE staffer says "I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was.": https://www.npr.org/2025/06/02/nx-s1-5417994/former-doge-eng...