I don't understand why Propublica is withholding the names of anyone on the list. In a country like Norway, everyone's amount of taxed paid and income are public record, just like buying/selling...
I don't understand why Propublica is withholding the names of anyone on the list.
In a country like Norway, everyone's amount of taxed paid and income are public record, just like buying/selling property is public record. Otherwise, how are people supposed to be able to ensure rules are followed and things happen above board?
I understand your point, but I imagine that those individuals value their privacy a lot and are extremely willing to cause serious damage to ProPublica. They also clearly have the resources to...
I understand your point, but I imagine that those individuals value their privacy a lot and are extremely willing to cause serious damage to ProPublica. They also clearly have the resources to cause significant problems for them.
Gut punch. Look, I don't have any illusions about being billionaire. When I play the lottery every now and then, it is purely for the entertainment value of imagining "what if". My family is...
A typical American making $40,000 would have to work for 2,750 years to make what the lowest-earning person in this group made in one.
Gut punch. Look, I don't have any illusions about being billionaire. When I play the lottery every now and then, it is purely for the entertainment value of imagining "what if". My family is comfortable, far moreso than I thought we would be fifteen years ago.
But good heavens that level of income is indefensible. As someone who makes less than the average annual income, it would take me multiple lifetimes just to catch up to that, let alone the millennia it would take the crack the Top 400.
I don't begrudge people finding success, though that can be a personal struggle sometimes. That said, I am in the camp of "the existence of billionaires is morally reprehensible". In my head, I cannot justify why one person should earn that much.
I think it's possible for one person to create 10,000x more economic value than another person. It's more possible these days to do so because technology enables people to scale their impact to an...
I think it's possible for one person to create 10,000x more economic value than another person. It's more possible these days to do so because technology enables people to scale their impact to an unprecedented extent.
Someone or company that creates a technology that makes a $100bn industry merely 1% more productive creates $1bn of value.
Similarly, executive talent is richly compensated because executive talent is critical for steering company direction. Under Tim Cook, Apple's market cap grew from $364bn to $2.7 trillion. Arguably all the real work was done by Apple employees: but Tim Cook shaped the environment so that employees could produce value. Under a different CEO, Apple could've shrunk and died like Nokia and Research In Motion did. The difference between #1 and #2 talent at the executive level is a matter of billions of dollars, so compensation is astronomically competitive.
That being said, I think it's societally unhealthy for such wealth inequality to exist, even in face of stark productivity inequality.
Excessive envy harms solidarity, which is key to social cohesion — leading to a worse society for everyone to live in.
It seems like lotteries with huge jackpots should also be morally reprehensible, for the same reason? And even more so, because getting awarded millions by purely by chance means you cannot...
It seems like lotteries with huge jackpots should also be morally reprehensible, for the same reason? And even more so, because getting awarded millions by purely by chance means you cannot possibly have done anything to deserve it, while if someone founds a hugely successful company, it's at least arguable that they did something important to many people.
And yet people are pretty okay with lotteries.
I suppose one reason is just scale. There aren't billion-dollar lotteries.
Lotteries are inherently fairer because every ticket carries the same odds and the odds are calculated, explicitly stated, and known to everyone. Other forms of wealth accumulation are inherently...
Lotteries are inherently fairer because every ticket carries the same odds and the odds are calculated, explicitly stated, and known to everyone. Other forms of wealth accumulation are inherently unfair, and largely a function of whatever set of conditions you where born into, including but not limited to the wealth and social status of your parents, your ethnicity, and your zip code.
As many teenagers remind their parents, they didn't choose to be born. Blaming someone for the accidents of their birth seems similar to blaming someone for winning the lottery? I think the point...
As many teenagers remind their parents, they didn't choose to be born. Blaming someone for the accidents of their birth seems similar to blaming someone for winning the lottery?
I think the point is not that the person is blameworthy, but that what they received is unfair, because wealth isn't divided evenly and they got more than other people. And this is what lotteries do too!
But people don't think that way. When they see a lottery winner, they imagine winning the lottery themselves. This is much like how they used to say that Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
The biggest problem, is that wealth begets more wealth. If you have enough money, it's easier to make more money. If you have wealthy parents, they can help you be wealthy easier. I'd probably...
Blaming someone for the accidents of their birth seems similar to blaming someone for winning the lottery?
The biggest problem, is that wealth begets more wealth. If you have enough money, it's easier to make more money. If you have wealthy parents, they can help you be wealthy easier. I'd probably have a pretty successful business as well if my parents could drop $100k of seed money in my lap, ala Bezos.
The problem is that fundamentally, the wealthy sell the American Dream as an equal playing field, and thus they deserve everything they have. Rather than them having a huge head start over everyone else and then acting like it's a massive character flaw for being poor.
And it's made exponentially worse by the wealthy supporting policies which bring them ahead further, while trying to dismantle any that level the playing field. Zipcode-based school funding is a good example. If your county is a wealthy county, the schools get more funding which makes their students do better in life. But someone born less than 2 miles away wouldn't have access to those schools, and would have to go to the poorer schools which don't have the resources to help under performers or provide extra opportunity for the talented. Private schools are much the same, though even more discriminatory because they can give preference to rich alumni's kids too. The school district at my last home didn't have the funds to continually provide heat to the middle school. The neighboring school district had a robotics program for 6th graders. Guess which students got into better colleges?
Bring back strong inheritance taxes and wealth taxes, raise taxes on high earners. Eliminate zipcode-based funding for schools. Eliminate private schooling and non-lottery admissions processes. You do those things, and the majority of @lou's points will be addressed.
But the wealthy won't let that happen. They'll whine about how it's unfair for them. So, in return, we get to complain about how they're born with silver spoons in their ass.
I think it's more accurate to say that Republicans (including many who aren't all that rich) won't let that happen? There are prominent billionaires in favor of more taxes on the rich. And anyway,...
I think it's more accurate to say that Republicans (including many who aren't all that rich) won't let that happen? There are prominent billionaires in favor of more taxes on the rich. And anyway, they don't have many votes, without convincing the masses.
As Bloomberg and other rich electoral candidates found out, money isn't enough to win elections, unless it's combined with popularity. But it's much easier to convince people of things they're already biased towards anyway.
Both parties serve capital, one is just a bit more flagrant about it. You must be remembering this different from me. Bloomberg primarly became and stayed mayor of NYC by his massive private ad...
Both parties serve capital, one is just a bit more flagrant about it.
As Bloomberg and other rich electoral candidates found out, money isn't enough to win elections, unless it's combined with popularity.
You must be remembering this different from me. Bloomberg primarly became and stayed mayor of NYC by his massive private ad spend and Rudy Giuliani (yes that one) endorsement.
And in this election, I recall Bloomberg entering the race late, spending an ungodly amount of ad spend and going from 0 to 15% polling almost instantly.
It might not be enough to win a 17-way election...but it's enough to tip the scales of that 17-way election to the candidate you actually want.
If Bloomberg didn't have billions, nobody would have given him the time of day.
Monetary lotteries are usually reprehensible not for the distributed wealth, but because they are exploitative of those whom are bad at math. The best way to get rich off a lottery is not to play....
It seems like lotteries with huge jackpots should also be morally reprehensible, for the same reason?
Monetary lotteries are usually reprehensible not for the distributed wealth, but because they are exploitative of those whom are bad at math. The best way to get rich off a lottery is not to play.
I suppose one reason is just scale. There aren't billion-dollar lotteries.
People often buy things not expecting to make money. If you consider lottery tickets as entertainment rather than an investment, they aren't more exploitive than movie tickets or anything else you...
People often buy things not expecting to make money. If you consider lottery tickets as entertainment rather than an investment, they aren't more exploitive than movie tickets or anything else you do for fun.
So, this depends on what level of sophistication you attribute to lottery players. Do they seriously expect to win, or are they just having fun? I generally don't like to assume poor people are rubes, though surely some of them are, sometimes.
When I worked at a gas station that sold lottery tickets, there were two types of buyers. The first was those as you describe...fairly well-off people buying a few for some entertainment when the...
When I worked at a gas station that sold lottery tickets, there were two types of buyers.
The first was those as you describe...fairly well-off people buying a few for some entertainment when the jackpots were high.
The second were the poor buying as many as they could every week.
Gambling addiction is real, and it's easier to get addicted when you want the result that much more.
Sometimes lotteries have pretty solid side effects. The Georgia state lottery pays for college scholarships. It’s a pretty good program from what I’ve heard from my Georgia friends. If it’s a...
Sometimes lotteries have pretty solid side effects. The Georgia state lottery pays for college scholarships. It’s a pretty good program from what I’ve heard from my Georgia friends. If it’s a 50/50 split between winnings and scholarships funds then that’s way more acceptable than a billionaire paying almost nothing. If top earners actually paid a ton of taxes then we’d be collectively benefiting from their greed.
Secret IRS files reveal the top US income-earners and how their tax rates vary more than their incomes. Tech titans, hedge fund managers and heirs dominate the list, while the likes of Taylor Swift and LeBron James didn’t even make the top 400.
I don't understand why Propublica is withholding the names of anyone on the list.
In a country like Norway, everyone's amount of taxed paid and income are public record, just like buying/selling property is public record. Otherwise, how are people supposed to be able to ensure rules are followed and things happen above board?
As the meme goes, we live in a society.
I imagine that legal aspects surrounding this data in the US are different from Norway.
Yes.
The principles and value to society don't differ though.
When the law's wrong, the goal is changing it.
I understand your point, but I imagine that those individuals value their privacy a lot and are extremely willing to cause serious damage to ProPublica. They also clearly have the resources to cause significant problems for them.
It would be nice if they were to address why they did that.
Gut punch. Look, I don't have any illusions about being billionaire. When I play the lottery every now and then, it is purely for the entertainment value of imagining "what if". My family is comfortable, far moreso than I thought we would be fifteen years ago.
But good heavens that level of income is indefensible. As someone who makes less than the average annual income, it would take me multiple lifetimes just to catch up to that, let alone the millennia it would take the crack the Top 400.
I don't begrudge people finding success, though that can be a personal struggle sometimes. That said, I am in the camp of "the existence of billionaires is morally reprehensible". In my head, I cannot justify why one person should earn that much.
I think it's possible for one person to create 10,000x more economic value than another person. It's more possible these days to do so because technology enables people to scale their impact to an unprecedented extent.
That being said, I think it's societally unhealthy for such wealth inequality to exist, even in face of stark productivity inequality.
Excessive envy harms solidarity, which is key to social cohesion — leading to a worse society for everyone to live in.
It seems like lotteries with huge jackpots should also be morally reprehensible, for the same reason? And even more so, because getting awarded millions by purely by chance means you cannot possibly have done anything to deserve it, while if someone founds a hugely successful company, it's at least arguable that they did something important to many people.
And yet people are pretty okay with lotteries.
I suppose one reason is just scale. There aren't billion-dollar lotteries.
Lotteries are inherently fairer because every ticket carries the same odds and the odds are calculated, explicitly stated, and known to everyone. Other forms of wealth accumulation are inherently unfair, and largely a function of whatever set of conditions you where born into, including but not limited to the wealth and social status of your parents, your ethnicity, and your zip code.
As many teenagers remind their parents, they didn't choose to be born. Blaming someone for the accidents of their birth seems similar to blaming someone for winning the lottery?
I think the point is not that the person is blameworthy, but that what they received is unfair, because wealth isn't divided evenly and they got more than other people. And this is what lotteries do too!
But people don't think that way. When they see a lottery winner, they imagine winning the lottery themselves. This is much like how they used to say that Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
The biggest problem, is that wealth begets more wealth. If you have enough money, it's easier to make more money. If you have wealthy parents, they can help you be wealthy easier. I'd probably have a pretty successful business as well if my parents could drop $100k of seed money in my lap, ala Bezos.
The problem is that fundamentally, the wealthy sell the American Dream as an equal playing field, and thus they deserve everything they have. Rather than them having a huge head start over everyone else and then acting like it's a massive character flaw for being poor.
And it's made exponentially worse by the wealthy supporting policies which bring them ahead further, while trying to dismantle any that level the playing field. Zipcode-based school funding is a good example. If your county is a wealthy county, the schools get more funding which makes their students do better in life. But someone born less than 2 miles away wouldn't have access to those schools, and would have to go to the poorer schools which don't have the resources to help under performers or provide extra opportunity for the talented. Private schools are much the same, though even more discriminatory because they can give preference to rich alumni's kids too. The school district at my last home didn't have the funds to continually provide heat to the middle school. The neighboring school district had a robotics program for 6th graders. Guess which students got into better colleges?
Bring back strong inheritance taxes and wealth taxes, raise taxes on high earners. Eliminate zipcode-based funding for schools. Eliminate private schooling and non-lottery admissions processes. You do those things, and the majority of @lou's points will be addressed.
But the wealthy won't let that happen. They'll whine about how it's unfair for them. So, in return, we get to complain about how they're born with silver spoons in their ass.
I think it's more accurate to say that Republicans (including many who aren't all that rich) won't let that happen? There are prominent billionaires in favor of more taxes on the rich. And anyway, they don't have many votes, without convincing the masses.
As Bloomberg and other rich electoral candidates found out, money isn't enough to win elections, unless it's combined with popularity. But it's much easier to convince people of things they're already biased towards anyway.
Both parties serve capital, one is just a bit more flagrant about it.
You must be remembering this different from me. Bloomberg primarly became and stayed mayor of NYC by his massive private ad spend and Rudy Giuliani (yes that one) endorsement.
And in this election, I recall Bloomberg entering the race late, spending an ungodly amount of ad spend and going from 0 to 15% polling almost instantly.
It might not be enough to win a 17-way election...but it's enough to tip the scales of that 17-way election to the candidate you actually want.
If Bloomberg didn't have billions, nobody would have given him the time of day.
Fair enough. I guess what I should say is that it doesn't always work, and it's harder to do nationally.
New York mayoral elections are pretty weird.
Of course we can make things more fair in the future. I was talking about the present, I have no idea what the future will bring...
Oh yes. I was merely referring to those specific ones. There's a lot more that needs fixed than some taxes on the rich.
Monetary lotteries are usually reprehensible not for the distributed wealth, but because they are exploitative of those whom are bad at math. The best way to get rich off a lottery is not to play.
There was that one time
People often buy things not expecting to make money. If you consider lottery tickets as entertainment rather than an investment, they aren't more exploitive than movie tickets or anything else you do for fun.
So, this depends on what level of sophistication you attribute to lottery players. Do they seriously expect to win, or are they just having fun? I generally don't like to assume poor people are rubes, though surely some of them are, sometimes.
When I worked at a gas station that sold lottery tickets, there were two types of buyers.
The first was those as you describe...fairly well-off people buying a few for some entertainment when the jackpots were high.
The second were the poor buying as many as they could every week.
Gambling addiction is real, and it's easier to get addicted when you want the result that much more.
Sometimes lotteries have pretty solid side effects. The Georgia state lottery pays for college scholarships. It’s a pretty good program from what I’ve heard from my Georgia friends. If it’s a 50/50 split between winnings and scholarships funds then that’s way more acceptable than a billionaire paying almost nothing. If top earners actually paid a ton of taxes then we’d be collectively benefiting from their greed.
Sometimes starting a company has pretty beneficial side effects too? (Jobs created and customers served.)