undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvmception4y ago0 comments

> This is a topic I truly want to become more mainstream knowledge. Wealth inequality only decreases notably during market corrections, which the Fed is determined to prevent at all costs [0].

I don't think any action the fed takes can reduce wealth inequality because of the simple reality that there is a capital class, and a class without capital.

Once one has capital, they can take any direction of the market in response to any market condition.

It "reduces" only in the sense that asset values decline for passive holders, but its hardly a different reality for those with negative/zero/five-figure net worth and the whims of those with 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 figure net worth.

0 comments

10 comments · 3 top-level

DennisP4y ago· 3 in thread

Sure, some assets do well when others do poorly. But labor is an asset too, and it's possible for labor to come out ahead when everything else is doing badly.

ThalesX4y ago

Capital owners would have to crash through a lot of safety nets to even get to the point where they would consider labor as a possible means to get ahead.

trgn4y ago

I think that's overextending the parent's point.

Labor can certainly come out ahead. Market crashed (or at least tech did), and will likely continue to do so. If you're a rentier now, it doesn't mean you'll end up in the poor house, but you're certainly getting clobbered versus the sharp income increases skilled labor is seeing today.

I think you'll see this inversion very concretely at the edges; the FIRE-crowd holding on to their jobs for longer would be an example (many of those find them starting from scratch now). Or those evil "capital owners", basically any 60+ white collar employee trying to retire now, they're terrified and will be holding on.

Sometimes people get what they want; labor market is completely hot, and capital is down the drain. Seeing very little rejoicing though.

DennisP4y ago

No, what I mean is that capital owners can do badly while workers increase their income.

darawk4y ago· 2 in thread

The federal funds rate mechanically lowers asset prices. Wealthy people own assets, poor people do not. Lowering the federal funds rate literally mechanically reduces the portfolio value of people that own capital in relation to people who do not.

vmceptionOP4y ago

did you read the just the first sentence?

the post acknowledges that the numerical value difference will decrease, while also acknowledging that the reality is barely different at all. so if you really want to say "the distance between wealth is less unequal" then, congratulations?

if you looked at "wealth inequality" at the very bottom of an asset crunch or recession, and never even saw what it was at the top of an asset expansion, you would still say "wow wealth inequality is super wide" only to be flabbergasted or amused at how much wider it gets

so its kind of a useless distinction if the realities are so widely different either way.

darawk4y ago

It reduces wealth inequality. That was the original claim, which the comment I was responding to denied.

1 more reply

ajsnigrutin4y ago· 2 in thread

I mean.. there are other factors in play too.

How much tax does a mom-and-pop (book)store pay, compared to eg. amazon (relative to size, income and profits)?

I live in a country that was once communist, and we still get a lot of very left leaning parties (literally with a red star in the logo), who always mention "tax the rich", but the effect of any such measure is, that poor people still pay (almost) zero taxes, rich people earn enough to make it worth it to avoid taxes (open a company in a tax haven country, move money around,...), and the middle class (engineers, developers, etc.) gets fucked.

Can't we first fix the tax laws, so that amazon would pay the same effective tax rate as smaller stores do? And then do the same for Bezos personally compared to a regular worker.

vmceptionOP4y ago

not really? taxes aren't about getting hurt equally, they are about being a passive revenue source for the country, amongst the other revenue sources. the user experience isn't really a factor and it doesn't make sense to give the overleveraged mismanaged country extra money that is just going to use the taxes to make its interest payments, just so people feel its like they're getting screwed equally.

if you spend more than you make that year, then it reduces what you have to pay in taxes. people with savings that far exceed what they earn that year, that they actually spend towards something revenue producing, will not pay taxes on what they earn. if you have outside capital that you spend, and that exceeds your earnings that year, then you have no tax to pay. smaller participants can operate this way too. if they don't have capital and are barely making ends meet by spending what they earn on consumptive things (even if necessary) then they have taxes on what they earn. this is the same for larger organizations if they chose to operate that way. not everyone has access to capital, or savings, or willingness or the risk profile to use their savings towards additional growth. but if you do take the risk, then thats the reward.

ajsnigrutin4y ago

> if you spend more than you make that year

Yes, sure.

But if you start another company in eg. cayman islands, then transfer your patents to that company, then that company charges you fees for those patents, and you earn zero on paper in your home country, and a lot in a country with very low taxes, you avoided the taxes in your main country. This is something large companies can afford to avoid paying the same tax rates as smaller ones do, while using the same (or even more) of the infrastructure that is paid by those taxes.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

10 comments · 3 top-level

DennisP4y ago· 3 in thread

Sure, some assets do well when others do poorly. But labor is an asset too, and it's possible for labor to come out ahead when everything else is doing badly.

ThalesX4y ago

Capital owners would have to crash through a lot of safety nets to even get to the point where they would consider labor as a possible means to get ahead.

trgn4y ago

I think that's overextending the parent's point.

Sometimes people get what they want; labor market is completely hot, and capital is down the drain. Seeing very little rejoicing though.

DennisP4y ago

No, what I mean is that capital owners can do badly while workers increase their income.

darawk4y ago· 2 in thread

vmceptionOP4y ago

did you read the just the first sentence?

so its kind of a useless distinction if the realities are so widely different either way.

darawk4y ago

It reduces wealth inequality. That was the original claim, which the comment I was responding to denied.

1 more reply

ajsnigrutin4y ago· 2 in thread

I mean.. there are other factors in play too.

How much tax does a mom-and-pop (book)store pay, compared to eg. amazon (relative to size, income and profits)?

Can't we first fix the tax laws, so that amazon would pay the same effective tax rate as smaller stores do? And then do the same for Bezos personally compared to a regular worker.

vmceptionOP4y ago

ajsnigrutin4y ago

> if you spend more than you make that year

Yes, sure.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse