If we look at all the political ‘isms’ from the past couple of hundred years, the only one that did anyone any damn good is capitalism.
Only capitalism provides a rising tide that raises all boats. We might like it if it was a linear process, that it didn’t happen in fits and starts, but that’s the nature of the beast.
Far better to be a lowly paid teacher in America than a highly paid anything under the thumb of someone like Saddam.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I agree with men being able to amass as much wealth as they want, but I agree with Paine in that no man should be able to establish his family’s wealth in perpetuity.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t see where Paine is referring to wealth. He’s referring to one man’s rule over others, and I also agree that hereditary rule is not a good idea.
That’s already taken care of with a democratic system. A son might rule as his father did previously, but he still has to win the elections.
As for wealth, why should you be prevented from giving it to whoever you want when you die? It’s often your kids, but you can prepare your will in any way you see fit. If you’re allowed to give it away while you’re alive, why should that change once you’re dead?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The more I read of your posts, the more I think that you are actually a conservative (and an intelligent one at that) at heart. You support capitalism with a moderate safety net and taxes.
You might be right. I think ideas from both sides of the left/right spectrum have merit.
I think people should be allowed to keep as much of the money they work for as possible, and that we should have the least amount of government necessary. On a few issues, particularly education and health care, I think everyone should be able to receive as much of it as they want or need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. A healthy, well-educated population is the best bet for a prosperous society.
On war, I think we should avoid it at all cost. We should exhaust all other alternatives (within reason, of course) before resorting to it. If we do decide to go to war, I think we should pull no punches in making the enemy regret his decision of engaging us.
When I post here, I’ve mostly been labeled a liberal (I think you’re the first one to call me conservative), but when I post on French political forums in Quebec, I’m called everything from a conservative, to a right-wing extremist to a fascist.
As you’d say, it’s fascinating.
[/quote]
You share many of the beliefs of Eisenhower. One of the best US presidents.
Pookie is always fun to debate with. You need to bring your A game with you but at least he admits when he’s wrong…as well as pointing it out when you are of course.
[quote]Pookie wrote: What about talent? Let’s say all car mechanics are paid the same; but one in particular is “better” at properly fixing cars. Once the word goes around, people will want to deal with that car mechanic, if they can. They might even bring him gifts or outright bribes. The talented car mechanic then gets “paid” more for doing the same job, simply because he’s better at it. Will you suffer through endless visits to a lousy mechanic just because “it’s fair?”
And don’t give me the education argument here. No matter the amount of education, some people are just better at some things than others are. Now amount of hockey lessons are going to transform a competent hockey player into Wayne Gretzky.
I don’t know how it is in the state, but here you can go all the way to college with very little in the way of personal out-of-pocket. Yet, a lot of people do not avail themselves of the possibility. They drop out, for various reason, during or just after high school. Yet they should be paid the same amount as someone who goes the extra mile and gets another 5-10 years of schooling? Why waste 10 years of salary if you can start getting paid $100,000 at 12? By the time the neurosurgeon start to practice, in his mid-thirties, I already have 25 years of salary accumulated.
[/quote]
I agree. It’s not just about education otherwise there wouldn’t be such a high wash-out rate in the more demanding professional schools, etc. But I still wonder if we had free or cheaper college tuition how much un-tapped talent would be hiding in the country.
This is a generalization. Doing something better isn’t always a function of money amassed. In other words, quality is different from quantity. It is purely an elitist belief that more money equals better.
To make money doesn’t necessarily mean the most money or to be the biggest and best. Do you think that all mom-and-pop businesses are in it to be the richest or maybe that they just derive some sort of livelihood out of being in business? Not all business have aspirations for being the next Wal-Mart in their industry.
[quote]I wrote:Do people participate in competitive sports activites just for the fun of it?
I certainly hope so. You’ve never played sports with friends just for the fun of it?
[/quote]
I know plenty of people who do not. I am not competitive at all so it doesn’t apply to me.
No. I don’t look at pay as a “reward” for services performed. I believe in a communistic model that would compensate employees equally within industry. For example, lets say a doctor and a janitor work in a hospital, their pay would be based on a government scale by rate, rank, and time in service and would offer certain benefits for special services performed like the military does and would be based on the profits brought in by the company–more profits equal better pay and government regulation will make sure it is redistributed equally and fairly; though I wouldn?t institute an “officer” type structure like the military because it promotes a class system. One shouldn’t be treated differently or given deferential treatment because of rank, etc.
The downside of this is that within the same company two people who do the same job get paid the same whether one performs better or not–this is where rank would play an important role and a promotion system would provide incentives to perform better. If you think about it this is the way it is now just not regulated. Companies do not currently have to justify what they pay their employees and where upward mobility is usually a function of nepotism and cronyism.
The value of our community would be determined by the demand the rest of the world shows for what we produce and thus our country would become a super-corporation that would best be served by our own virtuousness–i.e., the corporate model is how we proposition our country to the rest of the world. Take what works in the private sector and put it in place for the entire community. Then we can share.
No. Under a communistic model companies that do bad things would be punished because it takes away from the value of the community as a whole. Treating customers like cattle would not be tolerated. Stupid or not, customers need to be respected as humans and just not walking piggy banks–this would mean stricter regulation on who can get credit.
Under the current systems there is no need for the company to be virtuous and to the contrary actually benefits from not being so.
Under a communist system the government could be the lending agency.
Many lending companies are loan sharks. Just read the fine print on the back of the next credit card offer you get. Just because I am smart enough to know better doesn’t mean everyone is smart enough. Do stupid people deserve to be taken advantage of?
One benefit of a communistic system is that the IRS virtually disappears (or turns into a different agency altogether). Since all monies would go to the government anyway there is no need to institute an agency to strong-arm its citizens for taxes. No one gets punished for tax evasion. Also another benefit is that there is still a reason to perform and produce for the good of the community. And the best benefit is that it erases the wealthy, aristocratic class which has become a tyrannical oligarchy which uses its power and influence for its own gain.
Under this system there would still be a representative government and still have in place a functioning constitution and a form of checks and balances. Communism does not have to mean authoritarianism.
A downside is the massive amount of propaganda required to get the “juices flowing” to be brainwashed intoa productive mood. The government currently does this for illegal wars why not for financial gain? We can be patriotic and produce, too. Another, downside is that not all people have the same mentality when it comes to productivity and may not feel the need to be wealthy or contribute to others well being other than their own families. I cannot be forced to do quality work and am usually inspired when left to my own devises and often leave work early; but in the end my own happiness contributes to the quality of my work.
I am sure there is still something I am missing that would be disastrous in the end but it is still fun for me to dream. All of the ideas presented here assumes that our society believes in utilitarianism to a degree.
Communism is alot like the New York giants. Works great on paper, but you put it in the field and the shit falls apart.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Actually, I don’t see where Paine is referring to wealth. He’s referring to one man’s rule over others, and I also agree that hereditary rule is not a good idea.
That’s already taken care of with a democratic system. A son might rule as his father did previously, but he still has to win the elections.[/quote]
He actually chose to say ‘perpetual preference’ rather than wealth or ruling status and rather decidedly separates the addressing of hereditary succession from monarchy. I terms of being President, you’re correct, in terms of trust-fund babies and the aristocracy/bourgeoisie/proletariate, you’re wrong. I can see why a corporation may need $1B dollars or the ability to build that wealth over the course of time, but why does any man need more than a lifetime’s worth of money for more than a lifetime and what right does he have to keep it for that amount of time?
The money’s not yours, in the US it belongs to and is largely controlled by the Federal Reserve (I presume the Bank of Canada works in a similar manner, but must cede to your knowledge on that issue.). And while any given man may have immense value, allowing him to transfer that value after his death, ad infinitum is any other man’s crime against his future generations. Bill Gates is an extremely valuable man (apparently) and has accumulated enough wealth for many generations to come. While I have no qualms about his having and spending money, I do consider it an injustice that his grandchildren will be able to go to school/get food/get healthcare on dollars that Bill “earned” even though more capable and/or deserving children do not.
While I agree, people would flock from any country that immediately imposed a 75% death tax, I think you could phase in a death tax and get both the business-industrial base the US has while maintaining a ‘social haven’ akin to Sweden. At the very worst (in my mind), you would end up with a socioeconomic system where everyone worked to provide exactly enough for themselves and their progeny until their death and would teach said progeny how to do the same.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Stuff.
[/quote]
I’m a bit pressed for time, so I’ll have to keep it short.
Your inheritance tax could simply be sidestepped by having the rich man give his fortune away to his kids before he died. How would you prevent that?
Alternatively, you could set up a corporation doing “busywork” which would hold the fortune in perpetuity and simply appoint your children as CEOs or whatever title you wished when you left. Your heavy corporate tax would scoop away at the fortune year after year, but it would bypass the 100% death tax.
Again, your proposals, as those of LIFTICVS don’t work if there is a country somewhere that has more advantageous laws. Unless you can legislate a way to insure the fortune doesn’t leave the country, the very rich will generally find a way to remain so. Barring a World Government (unlikely for at least the foreseeable future), I don’t see how any of your ideas can realistically be implemented.
Personally, I wouldn’t want them implement anyway. 
So much for keeping it short… gotta go.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m a bit pressed for time, so I’ll have to keep it short.[/quote]
Is it even possible for me to interrupt a the “Planck Second” of work that you actually do?
Seriously, I appreciate the input and please, by no means let me be a burden.
The sum value of his estate (or some portion thereof) is due from him on his death, if he’s had major losses, those are deductable any ‘gifts’ he has bestowed are taxable and due from the respective recipients. If you wish, think of it more as a stepping up of gift and estate taxes, and elimination of income tax. Like deferring payment on income tax, payable on death.
First, I believe a 100% death tax to be equal in immorality to a 100% income tax. A man can quite easily be perceived as having done good for his community by having children and as such, does have some value outside his own life. Only on rare occasion does on produce children of immensely greater value than his own, contrary to our current system where any man’s worth can be transferred relatively arbitrarily.
The corporation is by no means bound to employ these individuals. The corporation’s obligation would be to it’s shareholders, not its CEOs. Unless the financier in question somehow turned over his estate to the corporation in question, along with controlling share of the corporation and somehow after ‘freeing’ the corporation, obligated it to return all of this to his progeny. The only way I could see this happening is if the entire board were composed of friends and family who agreed to his demands and even then, it would be a more democratic process than just handing junior a breifcase as well as those people being legally culpable for serving interests outside the shareholders. The ideal situation would be where the financier has educated the kid (directly or indirectly) to be a superlative CEO and the shareholders and workers are in agreement with the ‘employment trust’.
I assume that the U.S.'s superiority lies largely in it’s corporate base/business infrastructure and it’s ability to attract ‘intellectual capital’ as well as ensure individual freedoms, not it’s capacity for abject consumption or amassing of wealth. Our current taxes reach beyond our borders and pull finances back. This system would have no problem with people building wealth abroad, so long as corporate taxes are reasonable and education is well provided for, I would assume the place to build the most wealth the quickest, retire earliest, and live best would be here. I think a death tax would manage to completely provide all of these (do people maintain their freedoms after death?) as well as preserve for some/more of “the common good.”
I’m not necessarily arguing for their implementation either (or at least in a manner in excess of what we have now), rather I have a hard time believing the Founding Fathers (or those who ratified the 16th Amendment) had it figured out any better than we do today or that we can’t even begin to strive to do better (given the number of flat tax proposals, I’m not alone). And I have no doubt no taxes would be better than any taxes, I just believe taxes are inevitable and that death taxes are more justifiable and equitable than income taxes.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Communism is alot like the New York giants. Works great on paper, but you put it in the field and the shit falls apart. [/quote]
Nice!
[quote]hedo wrote:
You share many of the beliefs of Eisenhower. One of the best US presidents.
Pookie is always fun to debate with. You need to bring your A game with you but at least he admits when he’s wrong…as well as pointing it out when you are of course.
[/quote]
Gee… thanks. You’re pretty engaging yourself. Your first-hand military experience is quite refreshing from the usual second or third-hand journalistic report.
It’s really nice when threads turn out like this one, with many people debating various ideas in a level-headed way. Considering someone else’s point of view, even if you don’t share it, can often lead to a better understanding of your own convictions.
Hey pookie I don’t understand why you’re called a facist on those Quebec forums. What kind of system do they believe in?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I agree. It’s not just about education otherwise there wouldn’t be such a high wash-out rate in the more demanding professional schools, etc. But I still wonder if we had free or cheaper college tuition how much un-tapped talent would be hiding in the country.[/quote]
Although it’s something to keep in mind. If many people aren’t availing themselves of the current level of free education available, what makes you think that adding free higher education would motivate them? You can’t enter grad school if you’re not willing to complete high school.
Let’s say we manage to really promote education and we get a 90% voluntary attendance rate post-high school education. Do you still pay the remaining 10% the same?
It’s not “better” but more productive. Company A and B might sell a product that entirely equivalent in price in quality, but if company A can produce them for 80% of the cost that company B manages, then company A is “better” as far as production goes.
I agree that their are other considerations, such as worker conditions, respect of local laws, environmental concerns, etc. But all other things being equal, if company A has a “genius” employee who’s managed to improve the production process and therefore is directly responsible for the company’s added profits, I see no reason why he couldn’t negotiate a better salary than his pear at B Inc. He is worth more because he can do the same job better.
It not just about money. I know a few business owners who aren’t rolling in the dough, but one thing they all appreciate is being their own boss.
So you agree that different people have different aspirations and motivations… why would a system that tries to force equality on everyone be the right one?
If they get different pay levels, then you’re just reproducing, poorly, what the capitalist systems already provides.
If you pay them equally, I’d suggest that you’re being unfair. The doctor probably deals with a lot more stress, as an error can cost a human being his life. He also has to keep up to date on the literature, attend conferences, etc.
None of that applies to the janitor. If he makes a mistake, there’s a bit of dust behind a desk somewhere.
If you’re paying them equally, then you’re replacing the salary inequality with a stress and responsibility inequality.
No argument that that happens, but unless you have an extremely specialized job, if you’re good, you can “shop around” for a better employer. You’re free to leave Nepot-Depot and go work for Fair-Share Inc.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re proposing exactly. The image I’m getting is a nightmare bureaucracy.
It’s not always cut and dry. You can have cases where helping some people will hurt others, and doing nothing will also hurt people. Selecting the “best” option might only be possible in hindsight.
Didn’t we already solve this with education?
Yes, but no one is under obligation to do business with them either.
For some reason, I find this rather scary.
The credit company are charging what the law allows. Should a company restrict itself to the lowest amount it can charge, so long as it can break even year to year?
A better way to fix this would probably be to lower the maximum interest rate that can legally be charged. Get them to low, though, and you’ll start to see service charges appear to compensate. Then, everyone pays, smart or not. Is that better?
Unfortunately, no country has ever gotten even close to the ideal society you describe. All communist nations lose their way around the point where there is a strong ruling elite. Generally, the resulting system is a farcical parody of a true communist society, and is fraught with fraud and corruption. Instead of eliminating inequalities, they tend to exacerbate them.
But without elections and without choices in ruling party, how can you get rid of a bad administration?
One advantage of the capitalist system is that it is rather self-adjusting in that regard. Produce less, earn less, work more, earn more. It’s not perfect; but it works without requiring propaganda or brainwashing to get people on board.
I think your vision discounts the extreme diversity found in human nature. It assumes to much altruism and goodness on the part of too many.
[quote]40yarddash wrote:
Hey pookie I don’t understand why you’re called a facist on those Quebec forums. What kind of system do they believe in?[/quote]
A lot of people in Quebec are quite enamored of the “Nanny State” where the government does everything for you and basically provides every service you need. Using money that grows on trees apparently.
I got called a fascist (to be fair, it was by one of the nuttiest lefties) for saying that Harper (our current Premier) was doing a rather good job, and that I supported having our troops in Afghanistan. I also think “the Bloc” has outlived it’s usefulness and should fold, or extend it’s presence to every province so that it has a chance to form the government.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Is it even possible for me to interrupt a the “Planck Second” of work that you actually do? :)[/quote]
Work? No, it’s not. This was family though.
Hasn’t he already paid taxes on that money as he was acquiring it? It know that personally, I feel I pay enough taxes as it is, that what little is left IS MINE. To do with as I please. If my kids spend it, the govt. gets his sale tax, etc.
Weren’t you just suggesting that someone’s wealth should pass on to the government upon their death?
Isn’t it just an extension of the basic need to care for your family? I want to feed my wife and kids tomorrow, and next week, month and year. If I can guarantee them food for life, that’s great. If I can guarantee my grand-children and great-grand-children too, why not? If I’m acquiring the money legally, and paying all required taxes, why shouldn’t I be able to leave it to my kids?
Well it would be a privately held corporation. All the shares remain in the family, so there’s very little chance that outsiders are brought in.
Well, yes, it has it’s downside. It’s a workaround to avoid giving away your fortune.
People could build their fortunes here, and leave for a fiscal paradise once they retire.
Your founding fathers did pretty well. It might not be perfect, but it’s a lot better than many alternatives. At any rate, they could’ve done a lot worse.
No taxes = no government = not workable. In my opinion.
How about a fixed rate income tax? Everyone pays 25%, no matter what they earn? Wouldn’t that achieve the goal or “fair and equal” treatment?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Hasn’t he already paid taxes on that money as he was acquiring it? It know that personally, I feel I pay enough taxes as it is, that what little is left IS MINE. To do with as I please. If my kids spend it, the govt. gets his sale tax, etc.
First, I believe a 100% death tax to be equal in immorality to a 100% income tax.
Weren’t you just suggesting that someone’s wealth should pass on to the government upon their death?[/quote]
No, not the entirety of it, like I said, you don’t pay 100% income taxes so you wouldn’t defer those until death. I assume that good programs go unfunded because people are reluctant to give up their incomes to taxes (there are, obviously many other reasons as well) and further believe people would be much less reluctant to give up tax dollars if they were collected post mortem. Now, if we could only figure out a way to guarantee a worthwhile list of good government programs…
This is why I’m not in favor of a 100% inheritance tax, it would be distinctly anti-family and while governments someday or in some circumstances may need that tool, it’s definitely not what they need now. But as I said, the idea of Bill Gates’ Great Great Great Grandchildren having any socioeconomic advantage over mine or yours based on the state of affairs today seems assinine. And I’ll admit, this idea of mine isn’t entirely done baking.
So the shares are gifted to other members of the family or do they perform the work necessary to purchase those shares that are freely available on an open market?
Agreed. Just, that there will definitely come a time when a good chunk of their ideas will seem quaint. Not that Paine’s ideas are any more contemporary.
Agreed. I more meant in utopia.
Yes, but then why am I obligated to pay the government now (aside from “It’s the law!”) when I’ve earned what has been paid to me? So long as I’m alive and earning it, it should be mine to do with as I please.
And agreed about the civil discourse, it’s good to see a thread that could’ve quite easily rocketed off in one direction veered off into this one.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
This is why I’m not in favor of a 100% inheritance tax, it would be distinctly anti-family and while governments someday or in some circumstances may need that tool, it’s definitely not what they need now. But as I said, the idea of Bill Gates’ Great Great Great Grandchildren having any socioeconomic advantage over mine or yours based on the state of affairs today seems assinine. And I’ll admit, this idea of mine isn’t entirely done baking.
[/quote]
There is another side to this:
Since even Gates great-grand-children could not possibly spend it all, there will allways be this huge pile of money to finance new businesses with.
Give that same money to the government and watch it disappear building a bridge to nowhere.
Let us say they all live like kings, that would be a small prize to pay if they are just greedy enough to make their pile of money grow.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Now, if we could only figure out a way to guarantee a worthwhile list of good government programs…[/quote]
Great idea. Show me government I’m willing to trust, and I’ll see if I’m more amenable to including them on my last will and testament.
Why? Bill Gates enjoys immense financial advantages over any kid being born right now. What’s the difference if it’s his children or grandchildren who have the same advantage?
Bill Gates is an interesting example. He’s been giving away billions of his fortune for various causes around the world, fighting malaria being a stand out example. He’s even managed to convince Warren Buffet to give 30 billions to his foundation… not too shabby, for an “evil rich man.”
Really? I couldn’t tell.
I haven’t all the details. I was thinking up examples of possible workarounds to avoid your predatory inheritance tax. There might be various laws and regulations that prevent it from working in certain countries… Maybe an accountant can chime in and bore us to tears with this knowledge.
Just because an idea is newer, doesn’t mean it’s better. I’m sure the FF would be pretty surprised to see the US today. I’d be quite surprised if your current two-party, corporate lobbied system was what they were envisioning initially…
Change has occurred, but slowly, over decades.
[quote]No taxes = no government = not workable. In my opinion.
Agreed. I more meant in utopia.[/quote]
Utopia. Never could find it on a map.
Well, ok, but you can only avail yourself of the various services after you’re dead. Until then, enjoy your money, but stay off the roads, don’t call the police or the EMS, etc.
Who would’ve predicted that a thread discussing communism and taxation would manage to remain calm and civil?
[quote]orion wrote:
lucasa wrote:
This is why I’m not in favor of a 100% inheritance tax, it would be distinctly anti-family and while governments someday or in some circumstances may need that tool, it’s definitely not what they need now. But as I said, the idea of Bill Gates’ Great Great Great Grandchildren having any socioeconomic advantage over mine or yours based on the state of affairs today seems assinine. And I’ll admit, this idea of mine isn’t entirely done baking.
There is another side to this:
Since even Gates great-grand-children could not possibly spend it all, there will allways be this huge pile of money to finance new businesses with.
Give that same money to the government and watch it disappear building a bridge to nowhere.
Let us say they all live like kings, that would be a small prize to pay if they are just greedy enough to make their pile of money grow.[/quote]
Good point. While individuals aren’t obligated to use their money altruistically or otherwise, there is a better than even chance that by simply investing it, they are indirectly contributing in improving the lives of many.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Utopia. Never could find it on a map.
[/quote]
Always glad to help. And wouldn’t you know, it’s in Texas.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Utopia. Never could find it on a map.
Always glad to help. And wouldn’t you know, it’s in Texas.[/quote]
Only a few hours south of Eden too.
Why bother with those, when you can live in Paradise?