HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

woot482

no profile record

comments

woot482
·5년 전·discuss
If you believe that, then your answer is anti-trust -- not taxes. You also need to cut all red tape for small businesses which right now are enormous especially in places like NYC (property taxes alone are a travesty).

All taxes do is make the government a business partner of the 'imperialist' entrepreneur. It won't bring back the small town businesses or anything else about the past that you idealize.
woot482
·5년 전·discuss
I know the book and it's an interesting theory. I guess most of the 'rich' people I know / know of are entrepreneurs and they didn't get rich from capital returns but by building a company that created an unthinkable amount of value and also many jobs and success for a lot of people.

In my mind also, the best antidote to that is not taxes but anti-trust (make sure companies don't unfairly stay dominant) and low interest rates (which has been the case for a while) so that people without capital can borrow at reasonable cost.

Taxing a company doesn't make it less dominant. it can be argued that it makes it more dominant because the cost to compete with the dominant company will be higher if corp taxes are higher.
woot482
·5년 전·discuss
My theory is that inequality is simply the result of globalization and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

If you had build the most successful retail business, in 1900 you would own the market in your town; in 1950 in your country; in 2020 you'd own the world (or a big part of it). The opportunity is just a lot bigger now than 50 years ago and that trickles down.

Also technology enables goods and services to be produced from everywhere; that means countries compete globally. Many 0.1%ers had to overcome global competition to make the money they're making. In addition, more and more of them can do it from anywhere (def true for entrepreneurs starting fully remote startups, for instance).

So there is both value and necessity in having to compete globally to attract the entrepreneurs and highest producers / best talent. Does it mean 0 tax? No. But it does mean you have to have reasonable taxes and offer a good product (security, laws, culture, talent, whatever it may be).

It also means you don't offend your best 'customers' all the time. All this talk about how 0.1% people essentially unfairly stole their way to their success won't want to make anyone pay more or stick around to higher tax place (city/state/country).

As a government you first want to be efficient with tax money; be reasonable with taxes, even if higher than average (but within the competitive ballpark); show appreciation for the people that end up paying most of your taxes; and stop talking about inequality as being exclusively a bad thing and a result of tax policy.
woot482
·5년 전·discuss
If this was true and was indeed very little risk in getting there, they wouldn't have sold. Think about it.