|
Huh? Since when did receipt of a short term bonus count as investment?
Investment may be a bad term, but it's better than working. The short term nature and the huge potential returns encourage only short-term thinking, with no concern for the long run. If I can make millions in bonuses by boosting the stock price this quarter, who cares if it's bad for the company, I'll be gone, with a few more million in my golden parachute before it crashes.
So we are talking about the difference between long-term investming and short-term speculation? You realise that it's quite difficult to genuinely differentiate between the two. At its basic, what if I am a shareholder in an investment bank - am I speculating or investing? If a trading desk in that bank makes profits, they might be speculating, but as a shareholder I am getting a stream of profits. And some long-term investing isn't that great. A company that has "long-term" shareholders who may never sell can probably ignore what they say. Some "vulture funds" have led to improved corporate governance and returns in sleepy, crappy firms. After all, Rupert Murdoch is a long-term investor in newspaper firms, but his corporate governance is s@*%. You are aware that Lehmans was largely brought down because it was invested in long-term assets (property) that it couldn't sell when it came to it? So, in your estimation, when does "short-term" stop and "long-term" begin?
What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway? This seems like the difference between "rich people I disapprove of" and "rich people I approve of". After all, a CEO, even a banking CEO, has a job, so he is working - working rich. And what is fundamentally bad on "investing"? If no one invested, there wouldn't be any industry, no workers, no nothing.
"Investment" these days isn't like it used to be. It's not providing capital to start or grow a business, that's too risky, too slow and not profitable enough. It's gambling. Putting bets on the economy. Generally on short term movements in the markets. The real money these days is in high-frequency trading. Skimming tiny percentages off of high volumes of trades. The kind where you need your computers closer to the "trading floor" so the network lag time is less.
But anyone who's rich, even those who are still working, are likely also heavily invested in the market. What else are they going to do with their money, put it in a big vat like Uncle Scrooge?
I'd start calling you "investment rich" if half your income is coming from "investments".
Mind, as I said above, I'm really concerned with the top ~0.1%, not doctors, lawyers and others making good money.
Investment ain't what it used to be when you were a nipper?
High-frequency trading is certainly a growing trend, but whether that's where the "real money" is is debatable. The jury is out on the impact of it, and there can be some positive effects, such as increased liquidity, which brings down the cost of trading for everyone. And at its basic, from the moral perspective we are taking here, it isn't very different to trading off the basis of a chart, instead of fundamental analysis: you are looking at the trend in the share price, not the company. People have been using charts for a century, probably, or more.
Your cut-off is a bit arbitrary: if I own a successful firm into which I have poured my money and effort, and still own it and derive income, am I an investor or a worker? And what, fundamentally, is different about a doctor or a lawyer? In fact, they operate on the basis of closed shops with high barriers to entry, and probably earn money doing stuff someone could do for you much cheaper. That's fundamentally anti-competitive. I should know, I'm an accountant - same thing.
|
|
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.Heh. I suppose thats true. I wasnt thinking timeline-wise. Maybe I wont have kids until I'm 60.
Okay. Grandkids then. lol.
If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?
I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.
Inheritance tax is basically a form of social engineering - it was introduced by the Labour Party in Brtain, for example, specifically to break up the estates of the landed rich. Whether that was a good or bad thing depends on your point of view.
|
|
Net worth vs. income. Hm...Does the distinction really matter much? It's not like there isn't a lot of overlap between the 2 populations.
Especially if you consider the very elite. The 0.1% or less that are the real problem.
You are aware of how much tax these people pay, as a proportion of the tax take? There is some controversy about the reasons why, and whether they are repeatable, but since taxes were cut in the 1980s the proportion of tax payed by the very wealthy as a proportion of the total tax take has increased a lot. I don't have the figures in front of me but the trend has been very significant over the last twenty to thirty years. I'm not sure if this is the problem to which you refer?
|
|
10-20% of Americans are just sitting at home, stoically refusing to work, because they're jealous of rich children.
-OR-
Propoganda inflates and obfuscates an issue that means nothing whatsoever to almost anyone to such a large degree that nearly everyone in its target audience imagines they are somehow affected by it.
No, they are sitting at home because the world has suffered a global banking crisis that was caused by, in part:
- global flows of money from China and Germany to the US
- reckless borrowing by a lot of people, mosthly of ordinary or less-than-ordinary means
- reckless lending (and, yes, investing) by banks
- regulatory problems, too numerous to mention in this glib soundbite I'm typing
- governmental incompetence (especially in Europe)
What I'm not seeing is a conspiracy by rich people to f$&~ over everyone else.
|
Hmm.
Well in canada you dont pay an inheritance tax on cash, but for things like stocks and such(anything canada doesnt let you transfer), I believe they're sold, and taxed as income before they go toward inheritance.
For things that are directly transferrable that are not cash? I'm not sure how that works here.
Though I suppose to the kids, its income.
What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.
Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?
There is no tax on inheritances (although the provinces have a very modest probate fee) - what you are thinking about here is called the "terminal tax return".
Effectively on death you are deemed to have sold all your capital property for its fair market value - if this triggers a capital taxable gain, then the estate has to pay it. (Capital gains are taxed at 1/2 the rate of income).
Avoiding this terminal year is trivial (by design) You can transfer just about everything to your spouse without tax.
Basically this set up allows you to look after your spouse when you die, and ensures that any gain on the capital property will be taxed at some point (capital being taxed only on sale, not on an accrual basis like income).
Farms and fishing property given to children are also tax exempt. There is also a massive small business capital gains exemption you can use.
Avoiding taxing small business and farms is pretty trivial. We've been doing it since '72 up here, and I imagine you folks have been too.
Not sure where I stand on inheritance taxes. Haven't spent much time thinking about it.
Thank you Robert. You very elegantly and more completely expressed what I was trying unsuccessfully to convey well. :)
I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.
-Ok, I get up at 6 am, shovel black top, come home, wash, rinse repeat for A year, and get 20,000 dollars, a third of which is taxed as social security and medicare.
-I get a phone call that my uncle has died. Here's a check for 20,000 dollars.
Why on earth should working be taxed MORE than having a dead relative?
And if you give me that malarky about 1/4 of americans paying no income taxes you will be mocker mercilessly as you deserve.
|
|
No, they are sitting at home because the world has suffered a global banking crisis that was caused by, in part:
- global flows of money from China and Germany to the US
- reckless borrowing by a lot of people, mosthly of ordinary or less-than-ordinary means
- reckless lending (and, yes, investing) by banks
- regulatory problems, too numerous to mention in this glib soundbite I'm typing
- governmental incompetence (especially in Europe)What I'm not seeing is a conspiracy by rich people to f!&* over everyone else.
Agreed on all parts.
However.
> I have no input on how to fix how the global economy has effected things, I haven't taken more than highschool economics, and I took that in 2005.
> Those people were stupid. Its true. And they definitely contributed to buggering up the north american economy. To quote a guy i work with "You can't afford a 3 million dollar home on $30,000 a year." However, you can't get blood from a stone. Those people have already lost everything for trying to live drastically outside their means, and don't have anything left to give to try to correct for their mistakes.
> the banks need to be held accountable for the reckless lending they did (and it appears some of them are being held accountable, or are having to close because of their idiocy.)
> Lots of regulatory problems. For sure.
> There's that, but there's also the absurd amount of money that George Bush funneled into the american military for 8 years, even though the country couldn't afford it, drastically raising the american debt every year he was in office.
|
|
Why on earth should working be taxed MORE than having a dead relative?
Because its already been taxed when your uncle earned it, and its not like he's paying you for something, you're receiving his savings because he can't use them now that hes gone and he wanted to leave you the 20k.
If they need to tax it, tax it like a capital gain where appropriate, not like income.
Personally I like the model followed here better.
Because its already been taxed when your uncle earned it, and its not like he's paying you for something, you're receiving his savings because he can't use them now that hes gone and he wanted to leave you the 20k.
Ok, so why should DOING something for the money be discouraged while doing nothing for the money is encouraged? This is why i think the entire financial system is backwards. If you're actually doing anything the system is regressive.
Hey son, thanks for digging that pool for me! Here's 20,000! (tax tax tax tax)
Hey son, here's a check for doing absolutely nothing (taxation is tyranny!)
By your logic above I shouldn't have to pay sales tax because the money was taxed the first time when i worked for it or property tax because i payed taxes when i bought the property. The fact is that everything in our society gets taxed multiple times, but rich people write laws or have them written so that it favors them and cry foul if they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
|
|
Ok, so why should DOING something for the money be discouraged while doing nothing for the money is encouraged? This is why i think the entire financial system is backwards. If you're actually doing anything the system is regressive.
Hey son, thanks for digging that pool for me! Here's 20,000! (tax tax tax tax)
Hey son, here's a check for doing absolutely nothing (taxation is tyranny!)
By your logic above I shouldn't have to pay sales tax because the money was taxed the first time when i worked for it or property tax because i payed taxes when i bought the property. The fact is that everything in our society gets taxed multiple times, but rich people write laws or have them written so that it favors them and cry foul if they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Alright. I'll tell you a more direct reason why I'm against it instead of trying to justify it logically.
I find the idea of taking things from the dead, particularly things they want to give to people they left behind, to be morally distasteful. It's like, it's bad enough when someone does a B&E; but how would you feel if they dug up your grandmother's bones because they wanted her gold teeth. Or maybe they just take them out of her head before they buried her.
Call me crazy for it if you like, but I dont think its acceptable to tax the dead any more than they would have been taxed if they were alive (such as taxing it again when their children/grandchildren/spouse inherit it.) I see it kindof like graverobbery, but you're not even waiting long enough for their children to be gone.
[Addit]Its the sort of objection that doesnt just go away when someone says that gaining a bunch of money is like income.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm? Oh, I was too busy getting the boys together to collect some gold teeth from dead grandmothers and then go to the Occupy NH meeting.
Dasvadanya!
You're trying to equate grandma's checking account with her teeth?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm goin' for her accounts AND her teeth!
With just that one raid, we Anklebiters will be warm and well-fed in our warrens all winter long!
You're trying to equate grandma's checking account with her teeth?
Why not, both are possessions and both have value (I'm assuming we are talking about gold capped teeth here)? One certainly has more immediate liquidity, but both represent wealth. And inheritance tax is not limited to wealth that has immediate liquidity.
When you bolt something onto a person its part of their body.
When something exists as a number in a checking account on a computer in switzerland its not.
Replace Teeth with Wedding Ring if you prefer.
So people have an emotional attachment to their checking account?
Sheesh, even dragons need to have the money physically on hand to want to roll around in it.
When you bolt something onto a person its part of their body.
And when they are dead they are considered property. You take a corpse, you aren't charged with kidnapping, you are charged with stealing.
The question is why are YOU making a distinction between the two? Logically there is no reason to, only on an emotional level is there.
Saw this quote...
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
Let the rawr begin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saw this quote...
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."Let the rawr begin.
Rawr over what? That quote?
Both sides will think that quote applies to them, as both sides believe that they are the ones working for a living.
It's just that one side thinks that those who don't work for a living want a handout, and the other side thinks that those who don't work for a living want to hoard piles of money and stick it to the little guy.
I don't think that they want to stick it to the little guy but sticking it to the little guy is how you get a bigger pile of money.
The question is why are YOU making a distinction between the two? Logically there is no reason to, only on an emotional level is there.
What is this? A chewbacca defense?
If you're appealing to the morality of it obviously there's a difference.
If you're appealing to the legality of it you're out of luck because we already tax inheritance
I think what we're missing here is why estate taxes exist(ed). One of the problems we're seeing is that huge concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few is not "trickling down." It effectively stifles innovation and creates a cornering of the capital market.
Just as with giant corporations having competition-killing influence through control of markets and capital, huge, centuries-old fortunes create dynasties that can act essentially without restraint. Look at South and Central America for examples of that, where the moneyed few control all aspects of life for the "commoners."
It's an idea that goes back as far as Adam Smith (farther), and an instrument for encouraging new creativity on a "level" field, rather than reinforcing stale, inflexible hierarchies of wealth and power. It worked great when it worked.
|
|
we already tax inheritance
Not up here in Canada, eh.
(no I dont normally talk like that. Virtually nobody in canada talks like that. lol)
But anyways, they dont just tax the money in the states.
That family farm everyone is referring to? that gets taxed in inheritance too. regardless of emotional attachment, because you spent your childhood there, or whatever. If you cant afford the tax? you lose the farm.
we already tax inheritanceNot up here in Canada, eh.
(no I dont normally talk like that. Virtually nobody in canada talks like that. lol)
But anyways, they dont just tax the money in the states.
That family farm everyone is referring to? that gets taxed in inheritance too. regardless of emotional attachment, because you spent your childhood there, or whatever. If you cant afford the tax? you lose the farm.
Yes but that's everything here. It doesn't have to be inherited. You can own property or land outright in the US, but if you can't afford the property taxes, the gov't takes it.
So I guess it's never really yours...
If you cant afford the tax? you lose the farm.
Subdivide it, sell off 11 acres and pay the tax.
Subdivide it, sell off 11 acres and pay the tax.
The "mom and dad lost the farm to the estate tax" meme hit the factual wall 30 posts ago. Until someone rebuts that (hint: They can't), there is literally no point in replying.
Saw this quote...
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."Let the rawr begin.
Blaming society's problems on those with the least amount of influence, power, money, or control is patently nonsensical.
I think something being not stated is that (typically) employment is a money-making enterprise at its route.
A carpenter hired by a contractor to build a house is being paid because he is adding value to the original resources when he produces the frames to a house.
A cook at McDonald's is value to the meat, veggies, and condiments when he makes a burger.
So, when income is taxed, it is removing money that is part of the value added. If that value is not there to be taken away, the business will die.
Slightly more complicated would be a cashier who is "adding" value because inventory has no sales value if it can't be sold. Another example would be a baby-sitter adding value because if a parent cannot leave a child to earn a paycheck then the parent would not be able to add value somewhere else.
Someone is being paid for adding value and that payment is taxed.
Inheritance has no added value in and of itself.
Making a toy out of wood adds value to the wood and thus the payment to the employee for making the toy is taxed. Transferring $20 (or a house) from person A (who died) to person B (the beneficiary) does not make the $20 (or the house) worth more.
Note that it can be argued there are many steps and parts and jobs that require money and paying incomes which do not add value. To that I would counter that too many added costs that don't add value is a significant contributor to our difficulties in competing in the global economy, IMO.
|
One reason (justification trotted out) for taxing wealth on death is that tax codes typically encourage people to save for retirement by not taxing savings or taxing them at a lower rate.
For example here in Canada we have registered retirement savings plans (rrsp) and tax free savings accounts. You can shelter a decent part of your income each year in these vehicles. If you miss a year, you can bank your contributions for a year when you have money to put in.
When you retire you draw down the accounts and pay income tax on the money as it comes out (but less than you would have when you earned it).
When you die, if you are allowed to pass any money left over in those accounts to your children tax free, you will have avoided paying your fair share of tax. This isn't 20 grand that's already been taxed, its 20 grand that has not been taxed yet.
The same holds true for a lot of capital type investments.
|
|
I think something being not stated is that (typically) employment is a money-making enterprise at its route.
A carpenter hired by a contractor to build a house is being paid because he is adding value to the original resources when he produces the frames to a house.
A cook at McDonald's is value to the meat, veggies, and condiments when he makes a burger.
So, when income is taxed, it is removing money that is part of the value added. If that value is not there to be taken away, the business will die.
Slightly more complicated would be a cashier who is "adding" value because inventory has no sales value if it can't be sold. Another example would be a baby-sitter adding value because if a parent cannot leave a child to earn a paycheck then the parent would not be able to add value somewhere else.
Someone is being paid for adding value and that payment is taxed.
Inheritance has no added value in and of itself.
Making a toy out of wood adds value to the wood and thus the payment to the employee for making the toy is taxed. Transferring $20 (or a house) from person A (who died) to person B (the beneficiary) does not make the $20 (or the house) worth more.
Note that it can be argued there are many steps and parts and jobs that require money and paying incomes which do not add value. To that I would counter that too many added costs that don't add value is a significant contributor to our difficulties in competing in the global economy, IMO.
I sense a value added / consumption tax advocate. While that is one way of looking at income taxes, its not the way the people who implemented them were thinking. They were drawing on Adam Smith.
Who ever derives his revenue from a fund which is his own, must draw it either from his labour, from his stock, or from his land. The revenue dereved from labour is called wages. That derived from stock, by the person who manages or employs it is called profit. That dereived from it by the person who does not employ it himself, but lends it to another, is called the interest or the use of money. It is the compensation which the borrower pays to the lender, for the profit which he has an opportunity of making by the use of the money...The revenue which is proceeds altogether form land, is called rent, and belongs to the landlord...All taxes, and all the revenue which is founded upon them...are ultimately derived from some one or other of those three original sources of revenue, and are paid either immediately or mediately from the wages of labour, the profits of stock, or the rent of land. - An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations at 59 (book I Chapter VI)
What the income tax is taxing is wages, profits, or rents. Not added value. By favouring capital / savings it has started to drift towards being a consumption tax though.
I sense a value added / consumption tax advocate.I think something being not stated is that (typically) employment is a money-making enterprise at its route.
A carpenter hired by a contractor to build a house is being paid because he is adding value to the original resources when he produces the frames to a house.
A cook at McDonald's is value to the meat, veggies, and condiments when he makes a burger.
So, when income is taxed, it is removing money that is part of the value added. If that value is not there to be taken away, the business will die.
Slightly more complicated would be a cashier who is "adding" value because inventory has no sales value if it can't be sold. Another example would be a baby-sitter adding value because if a parent cannot leave a child to earn a paycheck then the parent would not be able to add value somewhere else.
Someone is being paid for adding value and that payment is taxed.
Inheritance has no added value in and of itself.
Making a toy out of wood adds value to the wood and thus the payment to the employee for making the toy is taxed. Transferring $20 (or a house) from person A (who died) to person B (the beneficiary) does not make the $20 (or the house) worth more.
Note that it can be argued there are many steps and parts and jobs that require money and paying incomes which do not add value. To that I would counter that too many added costs that don't add value is a significant contributor to our difficulties in competing in the global economy, IMO.
Not particularly.
I'm just stating that when taxing income, one is taxing money that is able to be paid as income because value is being added.
I was also addressing in a more general sense a specific (and I believe nonsensical) argument I saw made elsewhere. This argument was that if businesses had to hire people to figure out how to handle the new healthcare system requirements then it was good for the economy because they were hiring people. But, hiring people just to try and figure out the red tape adds no value to the product produced (a separate argument than the healthcare itself may add value...) but it does add to cost. Thus, lowered competitiveness.
I also think that can be expanded to the scope of government regulations. They are enormous and add cost to the product without adding value to the product in many cases. Whether or not one may think they are necessary is a separate discussion point. IMO, one had better be willing to accept higher unemployment due to decreased competitiveness if one is not willing to accept reduced regulation. This is not a call for an end to regulation or even a call for any particular piece to be removed but rather a statement (of belief) that they are intrinsic inhibitor to competitiveness and that one should be willing to accept certain performance limitations in the economy (employment) if one wants to increase regulation further.
Note: I do cede the logic in taxing income that was not taxed upon being earned.
|
|
I sense a value added / consumption tax advocate.I think something being not stated is that (typically) employment is a money-making enterprise at its route.
A carpenter hired by a contractor to build a house is being paid because he is adding value to the original resources when he produces the frames to a house.
A cook at McDonald's is value to the meat, veggies, and condiments when he makes a burger.
So, when income is taxed, it is removing money that is part of the value added. If that value is not there to be taken away, the business will die.
Slightly more complicated would be a cashier who is "adding" value because inventory has no sales value if it can't be sold. Another example would be a baby-sitter adding value because if a parent cannot leave a child to earn a paycheck then the parent would not be able to add value somewhere else.
Someone is being paid for adding value and that payment is taxed.
Inheritance has no added value in and of itself.
Making a toy out of wood adds value to the wood and thus the payment to the employee for making the toy is taxed. Transferring $20 (or a house) from person A (who died) to person B (the beneficiary) does not make the $20 (or the house) worth more.
Note that it can be argued there are many steps and parts and jobs that require money and paying incomes which do not add value. To that I would counter that too many added costs that don't add value is a significant contributor to our difficulties in competing in the global economy, IMO.
Not particularly.
I'm just stating that when taxing income, one is taxing money that is able to be paid as income because value is being added.
I was also addressing in a more general sense a specific (and I believe nonsensical) argument I saw made elsewhere. This argument was that if businesses had to hire people to figure out how to handle the new healthcare system requirements then it was good for the economy...
Heh, then ignore all the Adam Smith stuff I wrote. I was talking past the point it seems :)
Okay, if regulations reduce competitive edge, do they offset that by regulating crisis tendancies in economies? You don't reach as high, but you don't fall as far down? IIRC the G20 countries that have made it through the last crisis are the ones with strict(ish) regulations. Canada for example. I think the Scanahoovians are doing alright as well.
What the income tax is taxing is wages, profits, or rents. Not added value. By favouring capital / savings it has started to drift towards being a consumption tax though.
But, this is overlooking that the reason those can be taxed without killing the source is that value is being added. If no value were added it would be an entropic drain. The end result would be nothing and although nothing might never be reached it would be approached.
|
|
But, this is overlooking that the reason those can be taxed without killing the source is that value is being added. If no value were added it would be an entropic drain. The end result would be nothing and although nothing might never be reached it would be approached.
What the income tax is taxing is wages, profits, or rents. Not added value. By favouring capital / savings it has started to drift towards being a consumption tax though.
Well the whole entropic drain thing is why we have fictitious capital to begin with. But that's a long complicated discussion for another day I think.
Heh, then ignore all the Adam Smith stuff I wrote. I was talking past the point it seems :)
Okay, if regulations reduce competitive edge, do they offset that by regulating crisis tendancies in economies? You don't reach as high, but you don't fall as far down?
I agree that regulation has usefulness, is very important and I am not asking for its dissolution. So, I would not disagree with the description above.
But, I think it has grown too large. I also think that if we decide to keep everything we have and add more then we should not be surprised if we have a "new reality" where unemployment previously considered very high is the standard we will not improve upon.
|
|
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,790293,00.html Estonia might be an interesting counter example to my heavily regulated does better theory. Any Estonians out there?
Any Estonians out there?
Isn't that near Ustalav?
I was also addressing in a more general sense a specific (and I believe nonsensical) argument I saw made elsewhere. This argument was that if businesses had to hire people to figure out how to handle the new healthcare system requirements then it was good for the economy because they were hiring people. But, hiring people just to try and figure out the red tape adds no value to the product produced (a separate argument than the healthcare itself may add value...) but it does add to cost. Thus, lowered competitiveness.
Paying for the costs of doing business adds value in that you get to continue doing business.
The nature and amount of those costs change over time, but even when they increase, it's never a good idea not to pay them. It's like Warren Buffett said, I've never known of an investor who walked away from a deal because the tax was too high.
...It's like Warren Buffett said...
Alas, Warren has been cast out. Once he started saying the wrong things, it was either stop and listen to him, and maybe even consider what he was saying -- or throw him under the bus.
At least Mr. Buffet can afford good healthcare. :)
|
|
Taxing Inherited Wealth: A Philosophical Argument David G. Duff
My supervisor did his thesis on inheritance taxes if anyone feels like reading a 60 page paper :)
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction 4
II. Rationale 5
A. Traditional Tax Principles 6
1. Revenue ~ 6
2. Vertical Equity 9
3. Neutrality 10
4. Horizontal Equity 13
(A) Comprehensive Income and Ability to Pay 13
(B) Wealth and Ability to Pay .: 15
(C) Windfalls and Ability to Pay 16
5. Conclusions 18
B. Principles ofDistributive Justice 18
1. Moderate Equality and the Distribution ofWealth ~ 19
(A) Inequality, Inheritance, and the Distribution of Wealth 21
(B) Egalitarian Teleologies 22
(1) Introduction: Utility Disclaimed 23
(2) Democracy 24
(3) Autonomy 25
(4) Design Implications 26
(C) Qualifications and Counter-Arguments 28
(1) Material Prosperity 28
(2) Generosity 37
(3) Liberty 40
2. Equality of Opportunity and Individual Desert 45
(A) Liberal Equality and Inherited Wealth 46
(1) Liberal Equality and Distributive Justice 47
(2) Liberal Equality and Equal Opportunity 48
(3) Liberal Equality and Individual Desert 52
(B) Counter-Arguments and Qualifications ~ 57
(1) Introduction: Utility Against Justice 58
(2) Inheritance and the Family 58
(3) Mutuality, Obligation, and the Family 60
III. Conclusion 62
|
Ok, question. If you don't like the way this country ran please be my guess to move to a socialist or a communist or Greece since they both and quit trying to change this capitalist one to one or the other. Oswald who thought communism great until he actually lived there. You are free to go. But you won't you will screw up this country up when your utopias are only a plane ticket away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, question. If you don't like the way this country ran please be my guess to move to a socialist or a communist or Greece since they both and quit trying to change this capitalist one to one or the other. Oswald who thought communism great until he actually lived there. You are free to go. But you won't you will screw up this country up when your utopias are only a plane ticket away.
That's not a question.
Its also not an accurate statement of what people want.
I'm all for hard work and ingenuity paying off. That is not however what the current system rewards. It currently rewards a level of uncaring market manipulation for individual short term gain that borders on sociopathic.
It rewards convincing congress that a welfare mother doesn't deserve 12,000 dollars a year in food stamps because she shouldn't have gotten pregnant, but banks that deliberately gave loans to people who could never pay them off because they knew they would broker the loans to larger corporations are simply too big to fail.
Amidst the hues and cries of the free market, it rewards buying off elected officials to rent the worlds largest army to invade places for you and take their stuff.
The fact is that when you make money in this country you're taxed. The rate is supposed to be progressive, and with good reason. Actual tax rates are Regressive against the middle class in favor of the rich. We'd like the system tweaked, not destroyed. We want pathfinder 2.0. not 4e.
|
|
Hello Canada is just to the north and it has most of stuff the protesters are wanting.
Hey if you meet these easy criteria you can even become a citizen (after three years of being a permanent resident)!
The Immigrant Investor Program seeks experienced business people to invest C$800,000 into Canada’s economy and become permanent residents. Investors must:show that they have business experience
have a minimum net worth of C$1,600,000 that was obtained legally and
make a C$800,000 investment.Your investment is managed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and is guaranteed by the Canadian provinces that use it to create jobs and help their economies grow.
If your application is approved, you must make your investment before a permanent resident visa will be issued. You must usually do this within 30 days. The visa office will send you a letter with instructions. Learn more about making your investment.
CIC will return your C$800,000 investment, without interest, about five years and two months after payment.
I dont mean to try to guess poster's intent, but I think Brent is talking about some of the protester's calls for capitalism to be completely ended. I agree that it should not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, question. If you don't like the way this country ran please be my guess to move to a socialist or a communist or Greece since they both and quit trying to change this capitalist one to one or the other. Oswald who thought communism great until he actually lived there. You are free to go. But you won't you will screw up this country up when your utopias are only a plane ticket away.
So much wrong with this in so short a post. Well done sir. I commend your unique ability.
With us or against us, love it or leave it-- Bushisms. They had no value then, and no value now. Why propogate them? People who disagree with you are not the enemy. Hell, they might not even vote. How can any problem of a national scale be attributed to people just for their willingness to dissent against obvious corruption?
I wonder where you've been living that you don't know this country's already screwed up?
"Communism" doesn't technically exist, nor has it ever existed, anywhere. Everything you and everyone else has ever called "communism" is totalitarianism or fascism with a "proletariat" spin. It's a theory that has never been realized. Tried, by misguided people, but never done. So there is no "utopia" to run to.
Hello Canada is just to the north and it has most of stuff the protesters are wanting.
So did the US before say, 1999.