Social Darwinism, the end of equality and class warfare. Let's discuss.

[prolesunited]

After reading "The End of Equality" in the November/December issue of Mother Jones, I was struck by a number of points that were made. (Sorry, no link available.)

The article addressed the growing disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S.
• The top 1 percent now own 38 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 40 percent own 1 percent.
• The richest 3 million Americans put together are nearly 40 times richer than 113 million of the rest of us.
• Current ratio of CEO to worker pay is 500 to 1.
• The five heirs of WalMart stand to inherit $19 billion apiece tax-free while full-time employees make $8 an hour.

The author asserts, "Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?

Pervading American society is the belief that we make our own fate and everyone starts our with an equal opportunity. True or false?

Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?

If we allow economic inequality because we believe in social equality — the basic fairness of the race — is it not the government's responsibility to make sure the race actually IS fair?

I what ways is the race to the top not fair? What role, if any, should government play?

Lots to digest here. I would love to have the input of many DUers on this one — from the stalwart capitalists to the idealistic socialists.

[liberalhistorian]

1. I HATE SOCIAL DARWINISM,

and I always have. Its proponents, who so casually dismiss those without the resources to "better themselves", are invariably just like Shrub and his ilk, i.e., they were born into money and power and a family name and never had to work hard or do anything to get whatever they needed.

They seem to believe and assume that those who don't have as much money as they do, or who aren't as "fortunate", are in such circumstances due to their own fault and because they don't "work hard enough", which is total bullshit. How hard you work very often has NOTHING to do with how much money and assets you have. Look at Shrub. Has he ever put in an honest day's work in his whole life? Has he ever even HAD to? HELL NO!

[BurtWorm]

10. Paradox: The most zealous social Darwinists are rabid anti-Darwinists

A few years ago, I saw circulating among creationists on Usenet a racist quote attributed to Darwin, even allegedly from Origin of the Species. With all of that book on line in several virtual libraries, it's a simple matter of disproving the lie. Darwin was no racist. But the social Darwinists were, and they and the laissez-faire plutocrats have always been partners in crime.

[annak110]

67. Correct! Darwin was no racist, but the followers of Herbert Spencer

might well have been. Like you I think the rwnut creationists believe or try to make others believe that "Social Darwinism" was Darwin's invention The following describes the actual originator though in kinder words than you or I would use! Sure fits in with the laissez-faire plutocrats:

"Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was thinking about ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859). Nonetheless, his ideas received a major boost from Darwin's theories and the general application of ideas such as "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism". It would be possible to argue that human evolution showed the benefits of cooperation and community. Spencer, and Social Darwinists after him took another view. He believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals; and so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life.

[bleedingheart]

80. I have noticed the same thing.

Its kinda strange...

[DemBones DemBones]

144. Denial of Darwin is a cherished right wing principle,

and not just amongst the plutocracy. Human evolution is the great bugaboo. Those with little money or education but a belief in conservative thought can parrot perfectly a simplified "argument from design." It's clear that they believe that the smug "rhetorical" question "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys left? " debunks Darwin in one sentence. Try to disabuse them of this false notion and their ears are sealed, showing a resemblance to the legendary "Hear no evil" monkeys.

Yet, they'll apply the Darwinian phrase "survival of the fittest" to justify everything from abolishing the estate tax to monopolies swallowing up smaller, "less efficient" business. How is the monopoly more fit, more efficient? Simply, it rewards the men at the top ("the fittest") with the most money, going far beyond survival needs, while cutting the amount of money received by workers and middle management to a rate calaculated to give them little beyond what they must have for survival. How can they think it's just to enact an estate tax so that the wealthiest can pass on their money untaxed? They argue that it's fair to pass their "hard-earned" money on to their children because it ensures the survival of the fittest, here defined as the offspring of the fittest, previously defined as the men at the top. "Lesser" people would merely waste the money if they had it so the estate tax was never extended to anyone except the fittest, i.e., the men at the top.

They preach the virtues of meritocracy, wielding "accountability" as a cutting tool, a sort of buzzword saw. To preserve the illusion of an evolutionary struggle, they even allow very limited migration across the class borders (tokenism.) A question they can never answer is "Why should the government bail out failing business monopolies (airlines, S & L's) but take money away from schools where students are floundering?"

[Sirilaksana]

273. How can it be survival of the fittest when there are so many mis-fits?

Shouldn't evolutionary survival of the fittest include a way to ensure the misfits don't survive? Isn't that what we are leading to? Isn't that the "leveling of the plaing feild" that we speak so longingly of? Or are we trying to defy evolution, and rewrite the theory, "survival of the mis-fittest?"

[Vitruvius]

276. The rich Social Darwinists' definition of fitness is "THEFT".

Try making an invention and bringing it into wide use -- and watch how fast the big-business rich rip you off.

As my patent attorney once told me: "You know (Vitruvius), most inventors die poor." While the Rethug rich get richer and crow about their superior "fitness".

It's not just inventors, of course. Try contributing to Social Security and watch how fast the big business Rethug rich steal it to pay for tax cuts for themselves.

If they all went to the guillotine, I would shed no tears.

[ComerPerro]

2. Well, the inheritance tax would have been nice

But now these families can pass on their money tax free. So, if someone where to get rich by selling weapons to both sides during WWI, and then one of his ancestors got richer by supporting the Nazis before and during WWII, then that family could hold on to its wealth indefinately.

So, I would make sure the inheritance tax comes back. I would definately roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

But there is still one major problem:

We need to cut CEO pay somehow, while at the same time we need to find a way to encourage employers to pay average workers better and provide essential benifits such as health insurance. How though?

Greed runs rampant. We live in times where CEO's will lay off thousands of people without blinking just to get their stock up half a point.

Anyway, I don't have anything constructive to offer here. I don't have any ideas.

But I am kicking this.

That counts for something, right?

[camero]

4. It requires a new way of thinking.

We have to come to the realization that money is also a resource. The Fed has been printing out so much worthless money for so long that alot of people think it is limitless. It is limited. That's why we have budgets.

[prolesunited]

9. I thought you raised some very good points

Asking questions is part of the discussion. :thumbsup:

[pmbryant]

12. How do we restrain executive pay?

I think that's one of the biggest issues, aside from the estate tax, at the center of this problem.

I don't know how to do it either, unfortunately.

Encouraging more workers of all sorts to unionize can help provide better pay and benefits for them, in the long run at least. But if the executives still get to reward themselves however much they feel like, the improvements at the bottom will only be marginal, I'm afraid.

I can't help but think government is going to have to get involved in some way. And that will not be an easy or pleasant process, no doubt.

:shrug:

--Peter

[prolesunited]

13. Some ideas for curbing executive pay

Start a Campaign to Curb Runaway CEO Pay

Are there ways to curb the excesses and exorbitant compensation packages of America's CEOs? The answer is yes. You can start by expressing your views—whether it's to the board of directors, the IRS or the Securities and Exchange Commission. And if you're ready to take action, initiate a campaign to rally shareholders, co-workers and the community to sway the board of directors and regulators.

There are five ways you can join in the fight to rein in runaway CEO pay. Keep in mind that if the boss who is overpaid is your boss, there may be certain risks involved in challenging his or her behavior. You should evaluate those risks and then decide what to do.

• Get inside the board room
• Use your shareholder clout
• Rally your co-workers and the community
• Take it to the IRS
• Call on the regulators

Details of each point here:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/what2do/
Cool link to paywatch database there as well

Many countries in Europe have taken a much more progressive on this issue, with both the government and the unions taking an active role in curbing skyrocketing pay. The result is the pay disparity is far less between the CEO and the average worker.

I don't have time to research the details on what is taking place in Europe, but perhaps our overseas posters would be able to lend their perspective here.

[denverbill]

14. Require that labor be represented on every corporate board.

[pmbryant]

16. Excellent. AFL-CIO is a great resource on these kinds of issues.

Thanks for posting that info for us.

--Peter

[redqueen]

74. One idea

Tie the top tier compensation to a certain multiple of the bottom tier.

Also, there's a minimum wage law, why not a maximum wage?

Unrestricted greed is a bad thing. I think we've been conditioned to accept that it's not, but if you look at it in a holistic way, having such a lopsided distribution really does make the entire system unsustainable. So it's only logic to enforce rules to make sure the system stays more or less balanced, and therefore more sustainable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Why?

Suppose I start a company and run it based on my ideas or inventions, why should my earnings be limited?

[redqueen]

98. In the interest of sustainability

It's no secret that most people are desperately short-sighted. Greed and selfishness have most likely caused the failure or at least less-successful operations of who knows how many businesses. Really, by ensuring that the more powerful among us are not able to get carried away with that power, we're most likely doing so to their own benefit. :)

Look at it this way: corporations through their unchecked greed have created conditions whereby a great many people are unable to consume goods and services beyond the most basic needs plus relatively few extras. If these greedy top execs had thought long-term, and 'big picture' as opposed to only seeing things with their direct benefit in mind, they might have forseen that paying a more fair wage would enable consumers to purchase more goods / services, which would in turn benefit their own as well as other corporations down the road.

Kind of like Ford when he stated that his workers should be able to buy one of his products, only on a much larger scale.

I don't know... I could be completely wrong. :) But that's my .02 on that for now. Would certainly welcome any argument to the contrary.

[camero]

88. I agree wholeheartedly

If a house has a floor, it must also have a ceiling, or else everyone gets rained on. Just think of us as a nation living in one big house.

[Isome]

287. Maximum wage...

That argument is flawed. The minimum wage is a federal law that they (rw'ers) don't want. Of course they wouldn't want a maximum wage law.

I have no problem with people making as much money as they want, no restrictions. However, they should not be allowed to make all that money while exploiting labor. Pay yourself what you can afford after you pay those who make your wealth possible a living wage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

290. Workers do have options

If you have a valuable skill, you can shop it around to another employer or go off on your own. If you don't, why should an employer pay more than what that skill is worth?

[Isome]

293. Why should they be paid LESS?

That was the crux of my argument. I didn't talk about being paid more.

[Silverhair]

40. The inheritance tax was killing the family farms.

Farming is the greatest number of father to children business that there are. So when the farmer dies and the land & equipment has to be passed on, the inheriting family member has to take out a huge loan to buy the farm (Pay the taxes.)from the gov't. Often that loan pushes the farm into bankruptcy, and then it gets purchased by a "factory farm." And another family farm is lost. What happened to the Democrats being the friend of the family farmer?

[camero]

41. LOL

You're doing satire, right? From my understanding of it, the tax didn't even really kick in unless the value was over $1 million.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Value

One of the problems is that farms involve a lot of land and land has a lot of value, but not necessarily for farming. So, I have 1,000 acres in an area relatively close to a big city. It might not be that valuable as a farm, but if you want to build homes, wow.

Some jurisdictions have allowed owners to put the land into trusts so it can remain farmland, but then you lose the value for future generations.

Face it, families WANT to be able to pass wealth along to the next generation. If I buy something today and keep it and maintain it for 50 years and THEN it is suddenly worth a lot, I don't want half of it taxed away.

[camero]

58. oh give me a break

All inheritences do is create plutocracies. I dare you to give me one example with a link of a family farm getting taken because of taxes.

Or better, as another poster implied, why not just exempt farms? They won't because they don't give a rat's ass about farmers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Farms, land, whatever

Why can't I save my entire life to make sure that my children are better off than I am? I grew up poor. I'll be damned if I want my children to go through that.

If you really want to deal with the problem, make the tax for anyone who has $1 billion or more. No one would complain except Bill Gates. And if you do have more than $1 billion, it might be in your best interests to give away a bit to get under that number before you die.

[camero]

64. You couldn't do it.

Because it hasn't happened. we should make it anything over $5 million. There are still very few people with a net worth over that.

I wouldn't leave much to my kids besides enough to give them an education because I would like them to learn the value of hard work.

Inheritences go directly against that instinct because the kid will just think all he has to do is sit and wait for his inheritance.

Look at Bush. Perfect example.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Your first point eludes me

Why shouldn't we make it $1 billion. No one could defend it. No one would care except a couple people.

I could still give my children whatever I wish and the uber-wealthy would be taxed.

Again, you are not talking about fairness now, you are discussing parenting. How I choose to parent is my own decision.

[camero]

69. We have to do it in a way.

That keeps the work ethic and $5 million is plenty of money. Just applying it to billionaires only says not to be a billionaire. It doesn't say don't take too much from society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. $5 million

So, if I have a couple kids, all I can leave them is about a million bucks each? (Not that I have it.)

Sorry, but I don't agree. A million dollars is a lot to most of us, but it is not anywhere near what I would call "wealth." Face it, if you got a million bucks today, you'd probably still have to work for a living. I know this sounds silly, but that is a lot of money, but not great wealth.

[camero]

77. That's the idea

To have them keep the value of work and not say,put a price on your head.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Again, you are trying to make MY choice for me

[camero]

82. Maybe it needs to happen

Money is also a resource that is limited. You can't have rich people unless you have poor people. Your kid being a trust fund baby means my kid goes without food.

That is what alot of people fail to understand. That things like this are what creates and expands inequality and creates discontent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. The problem I see is less at the top and more at the bottom

* Cities crumbling because of neglect and tax plans that encouraged people moving to the burbs.
* Education crumbling and only the poor can't opt out.
* Healthcare crumbling and only the poor can't opt in.

Americans like the idea that they can make it and earn great wealth, but what we need to fix is opportunity for people at the low end.

[camero]

92. What? That's what's happening now.

And wealth is rising to the top. And it always will because the primary urge of the wealthy is to protect their wealth.

There is no "trickle down" that you think there is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. Who said "trickle down?"

My point was rather than focus on this, I would rather focus on providing opportunity for the disadvantaged. That would be an easier sell than trying to limit opportunity for some.

[IrateCitizen]

111. You really don't get the irony in what you're saying, do you?

That would be an easier sell than trying to limit opportunity for some.

Handing down enormous sums of wealth from generation to generation has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing them "opportunity". What it has EVERYTHING to do with is allowing them to achieve wealth that they did nothing to earn -- other than win the birth canal lottery.

Do you not realize that by taxing the opulent inheritances of a few, you are actually helping to grease the wheels of opportunity for the disadvantaged that you are now talking about? Or do you think that the money for social programs that provide opportunity grows on trees?

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. There is no irony here

I like freedom. Freedom to work. Freedom to earn. Freedom to spend AND freedom of opportunity.

Right now we don't have it. And that disparity is huge. There will always be rich people and to think we can limit that is naive. Instead, I would rather focus on those who lack opportunity.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't consider $5 million opulent. Maybe you do. I lived in D.C. and opulence certainly varies from area to area. But there, a lot of folks make six figure incomes. There $5 million isn't significant wealth. If you live in Appalachia, perhaps $5 million is Carnegie-esque.

[IrateCitizen]

120. It is quite obvious that you are missing the irony, from this post.

and as such, I really don't care to waste my time discussing this with you any further. Beating my head repeatedly against my desk would probably be more productive. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

184. Nice image

At least.

[redqueen]

Rich people

You say 'to think we can limit that is naive'. I disagree. What you seem, IMO, to be missing in this debate is the fact that when wealth is allowed to concentrate in a dynasty, that this money doesn't come from another dimension, it comes from the collective wealth of the nation. The ability of people to spend their entire lives without ever having to earn any of the money they so carelessly spend on $1,000 bottles of champagne and the like is only possible due to the exploitation of the lowest paid among us. The wealth of this nation is not infinite, and when it is concentrated in the hands of a few, it is necessarily unavailable to the masses.

You say you want to focus on those who lack opportunity, but in order to do so you must first give an honest assessment of the conditions you're talking about.

You may not consider $5 million opulent. Everyone has a different opinion. But trust me, when the average family income is around $35-40K, someone earning 12500% of your family income IS opulent, by community standards.

True, the gross distortions of the inequality made possible by the historical inequity fostered in our country makes it all to easy to distort one's perception of reality (i.e. your 'carnagie' statement). But you can't change reality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

188. Not opulent

One of the many things blanket taxation plans fails to take into account is regional cost of living. I can live like a king in Appalachia on a limited budget. In the D.C. area, I know singles who are scraping by on incomes of $100,000.

It's perspective.

As for wealth, I've never even seen a $1,000 bottle of champagne, but if Bill Gates wants to bathe in the stuff, I'm OK with that. Or if he wants to leave enough for his kids to do so, I'm OK with that as well.

[IrateCitizen]

190. NOBODY scrapes by on $100k per year. NOBODY.

And don't tell me about living in a "high cost of living" area. I live in Westchester County, NY.

Anybody who is "scraping by" at $100k per year is confusing "wants" with "needs".

As for wealth, I've never even seen a $1,000 bottle of champagne, but if Bill Gates wants to bathe in the stuff, I'm OK with that. Or if he wants to leave enough for his kids to do so, I'm OK with that as well.

Well, if you're OK with money being used for that rather than providing opportunity to those at the lower end of the scale, that's your perogative. Just don't bitch and moan about the lack of opportunity at the lower end of the scale afterwards.

[Muddleoftheroad]

192. Mortgages alone

Are devastating in the D.C. area where starter homes are in the 400K range.

As for how we fund stuff at the other end of the spectrum, I get it now. Either I agree to your plan for confiscatory taxes or I am against funding stuff for poor people.

Sorry, it's not that black and white. I just oppose the estate tax.

[IrateCitizen]

197. Starter HOMES? What about apartments?

You're talking about single people living in starter homes? That's a luxury, my friend. My wife and I live in a 2 bedroom co-op. And even the second bedroom is not a necessity. We could live in a 1-bedroom if we absolutely had to.

As for how we fund stuff at the other end of the spectrum, I get it now. Either I agree to your plan for confiscatory taxes or I am against funding stuff for poor people.

Sorry, it's not that black and white. I just oppose the estate tax.

Do you even know how much the estate tax is? It is an average tax rate of 19% on all assets over $1 million for each person that dies (in the case of a mother and father dying, that means $2 million is the threshold). That means that you get taxed ZERO on EVERYTHING under that $2 million, and at only 19% on everything over that.

Let's figure that out -- an estate worth $3 million is passed down. The inheritants get $2,810,000 and the government gets $190,000. Hardly seems an unfair exchange to me.

If you oppose the estate tax, then you are in favor of removing 7% of non-military discretionary spending from the US budget. If you can name another viable source of funding from which to draw on this money, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it's going to come out of programs for the very people for whom you express concern.

It really is quite simple -- 2-2=0, not 2-2=3, as you claim it to be. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

201. Owning a home is a luxury?

OK, your view IS skewed.

The gall of single people wanting to own their own fucking homes.

The problem I have with the estate tax -- 9%, 19% or 90% -- is that it taxes people both for saving, which is ridiculous and at the time when they are most upset and vulnerable.

[IrateCitizen]

206. Owning a HOUSE as a SINGLE PERSON most certainly is

Like I said, my wife and I own our 2-bedroom co-op. If we had a house with just the two of us, it would be a luxury, not a necessity.

The problem I have with the estate tax -- 9%, 19% or 90% -- is that it taxes people both for saving, which is ridiculous and at the time when they are most upset and vulnerable.

Like I've said repeatedly, the tax doesn't kick in until you get over $2 million. Then, it's 19% of anything over that.

Furthermore, what is being taxed is a FINANCIAL TRANSACTION -- the transferrence of assets from a dead relative, who owned those assets, to a live relative, who did nothing to earn those assets themselves other than be related to the first person.

Given the numerous ways of setting up trusts and foundations and the like to shelter funds before one dies, your argument on this isn't really worth the electrons it takes to appear on the screen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

209. Boy I am glad you aren't in charge

So, single peoole are really just second class citizens to you unworthy of home ownership?

Owning a home is the American Dream. It's why government goes out of its way to create tax credits to facilitate this.

Death is not a financial transaction, it's death. You typically have no choice in the timing and many are unprepared. And our government gets to take advantage of that.

It's ghoulish.

[IrateCitizen]

212. No, it's not a NECESSITY for them!

You're the one who brought up people you know "scraping by at $100k per year". I'm simply pointing out that it's absurd to talk of anyone "scraping by" while making that much. "Scraping by" is a family of 4 living in the South Bronx on $35k per year.

You made it out as if owning a HOUSE (not the same as a HOME, which could be a co-op, townhouse or condo) was a necessity for these folks. I said that it isn't.

Death is not a financial transaction, it's death. You typically have no choice in the timing and many are unprepared.

Right. Death is death. The transferrence of wealth -- even if it is precipitated by death -- is just that: a transferrence of wealth. I'm amazed that you are completely unable (or unwilling) to see the difference!

[Muddleoftheroad]

218. Home

Most of what Americans spend their money on are not true necessities, but we feel the need for them nevertheless.

DVD players, nicer cars, Internet access (unless you use it for work), cell phones, houses, nice clothes, eating at restaurants, etc. all fall into this category.

But owning your own home is central to the American Dream.

As for death, we might as well disagree. I think it is a horrible, ghoulish and EXTRA tax on money already taxed and dumped on family members at the worse time in their lives.

[dpibel]

229. Money already taxed

What about the difference in value between the purchase price of stocks, real estate, or other appreciating assets. When was that taxed?

[dpibel]

228. Straight talk

Regardless of the right-wing term "death tax," it's not a tax on death.

It's a tax on wealth transfer.

Even you see that, since what you want is the right for the wealthy to transfer their wealth to their children, undamaged by predatory gubmint.

You have now come down to an emotional appeal, in which you create a picture of poor, bereaved children having their grieving process destroyed by their worries about the estate tax.

Get a grip.

For starters, in order to pay the estate tax, you have to know how big the estate is. That's part of the probate process. It's not finished until a long time after death. So your argument that it hits when people are emotionally vulnerable is--oh, how do you say it?--disingenuous.

Additionally, anyone who has an estate that's going to be subject to the estate tax either (1) has dealt with that fact before death and has an attorney standing by to handle the wealth transfer or (2) is a bleedin' eejut.

Save your sniffles for something real.

[camero]

223. you're right

One person takes up less room than a family. And by getting a larger house than needed. That's less room there for others.

[redqueen]

207. Alright now, let's not get ugly

I don't think single people should be excluded from wanting to own their own homes, however this does skew wants and needs.

Everyone needs shelter. Everyone deserves to have a home. However for a single person to buy a home is a little bit of a stretch, when you consider that there are large families cramped into tiny apartements or publicly funded low-income housing. And when you consider that these are the people that you claim to want to help, but yet still argue that your single friends should be excused for their selfish concerns, this discussion really borders on the bizarre.

And my apologies if you bristle at my classification of your friends' priorities as selfish, that's just the way I see it. If one wants to bust their budget in order to own a home they don't really need, then IMO that's a bit self-centered, not to mention irresponsible -- kind of like the mythical welfare recipients driving cadillacs. As a single person, whose budget can barely accomodate the cost of a home in the DC area, some would argue the reasonable decision would be to seek another area or not buy.

And this also opens up a whole new discussion regarding the cost of housing. It really isn't considered how much lower- and even middle-income families are priced out of homes altogether -- IMO a man earning the average $35-40K should be able to provide a home for his stay at home wife and children. But that's another topic. Not to mention the whole interest boondoggle. Bankers aren't complaining, though -- I'll leave it at that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

210. More people who think single people don't matter

Well, I suggest you catch the trend that people are waiting longer to get married and many get divorced. It's positively selfish for them to want to have a decent standard of living and a sane amount of living space.

Everyone needs shelter, everyone wants a home.

So you consider it selfish to want to own your own home or, even scarier, a home close to work?

[redqueen]

214. Don't matter?

I never said that. You're twisting my words and I don't really get why. It's not that I wish to deny them a decent standard of living. It's just that we are all expected to live within our means.

I don't consider it selfish to want a home, nor to live close to work. However, you yourself have spelled it out. "Want". Not 'Need'.

Many children in the DC area would probably laugh or cry at what you and your friends call 'scraping by'.

[IrateCitizen]

215. He's propping up an obstacle course of strawmen

I swear, I haven't heard this much propaganda on the subject outside of the RNC! I'm only surprised that he hasn't referred to it as the "death tax" yet! :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

219. Did I miss that?

Dang.

[redqueen]

199. Blanket taxation?

Where did that come from?

If you want to argue that your children would need so much more than the random $5 million that's been stated, because the cost of penthouses in Manhattan is so high... you see where that argument falls apart don't you? When so many children go without insurance, without shelter, without food?

Yes, it is perspective. And yes, cost of living is a factor. However you can't defend opulence without taking the whole picture into account. In order for you to tell me that you know singles in DC who 'scrape by' on $100K / yr, you consider first the number of families in DC who are... what... starving to death?... on $20K / yr? Or less even? What do these singles you know consider the necessities which make up their cost of living expenses? Why do you consider that the children of the less wealthy deserve to be raised in families that are burdened by the stress of really 'scraping by'. Stress is very damaging to your health. Studies show that the children of women who while pregnant experienced stress or mental anguish are affected by that stress or anguish into adulthood. How much dysfunction in society are you willing to tolerate so that your children -- whom I assume you consider more worthy of quality of life than the children of your fellow man -- can have $1000 bottles of champagne? or a penthouse? or never have to work for their own wealth?

The point is not whether you think it's okay to blow what for some people is a month's earnings on a bottle of booze -- it's whether you think it's okay to deny that wealth to the common good so that your children don't have to work in order to guzzle it.

I'm not saying that we should be communists. Far from it. However I do think we all owe it to ourselves and to our creator, if you believe, to do an honest accounting of our selves and our values.

[Muddleoftheroad]

203. If people want to give to charity that's great

And I am all for funding lots of social programs, but not by an estate tax which hits people at a horrible time in their lives and relies on the fact that many people are ill-prepared for their death.

[redqueen]

211. How many wealthy people do you know?

I have known several families which dealt with estate taxes, and trust me they were all prepared. That's one of the things that usually comes with wealth, is an overabundance of concern for hanging on to it.

To put it simply, the estate tax is fair business. This wealth is being passed down, which as has been said, is a transaction. As there is a changing of ownership involved, the recipient, above a threshold, pays a tax. This is good for two reasons: it provides that the person receiving it is not given unfair compensation (as those that must earn their wealth must pay tax), and that it provides a check on the formation of dynasties which would naturally form as time passed and the wealth in such families grew.

You claim you're all for funding lots of social programs, but you simultaneously demand that when your heirs receive their wealth, that because it's coming from you and not another person, that they should not pay a tax. I don't know how that's fair. You're basically saying that others who labor should pay for the social programs through a tax on their earnings, but that your offspring, despite the fact that they performed no labor, yet still receive earnings that you have collected, should not also add to the fund for the common good. I just don't get it. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. Money should be taxed once

Not multiple times.

If I save it and pass it along, it should not be taxed again simply because I am thrifty. You are double taxing and that is inherently unfair.

Children are an extension of you and you should be able to pass down your wealth -- ALL of your wealthy -- without the government grabbing money yet again.

[camero]

233. The money is just taxed once

When you were alive, it was yours. When you die, the money is no longer yours (You can't take it with you, remember?), it's your child's. So the government has taxed your child and not you.

[redqueen]

245. You're a font of right wing spin points today

The spin-point of “double taxation” is a toll used to confuse people. Money is taxed as many times as it is cycled in it's journey through the economy, usually during transactions.

For example, workers pay income, payroll, and sales taxes on their wages -- that's triple taxation!!! :eyes:

Furthermore, in the cases of most larger estates (consisting mostly of unrealized capital gains), these are more often than not never taxed before the estate tax hits during the transfer to heirs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

248. My family is not the economy

We are a family unit. That's not a cycle. That's keeping it in the family.

And saying you are screwing families is not a right wing point, it's true.

[redqueen]

255. Sorry

but you're claiming that the transfer of ownership of wealth from one generation to the next is not a transaction, and that's BS.

This is not 'screwing families'. This is fairness. The children of the rich should not be able to get large sums of cash tax free because their parents were ingenious, lucky, thrifty, or criminal. When you give cash to someone, it's taxed. Deal.

[Muddleoftheroad]

257. No deal, not now, not ever

But perhaps we just agree to disagree because I think we are entrenched.

[stevebreeze]

302. let's get this stright

if you child worked for you they are taxed at a normal rate. If they do nothing for the same money they should not be taxed at all?

[prolesunited]

213. Why do you persist in putting forth this notion

that this tax affects everyone? As has been repeatedly pointed out, the estate tax only affects a VERY small segment of the population.

The only benefit of the estate tax is not just to fund social programs, but to prevent the creation of economic aristocracies. Without some intervention, we are going to wipe out the middle class and create a system of haves and have-nots. You have an elite ruling class creating that will continue to pass laws that benefit themselves and Venezuela comes to mind. Is that the type of society you wish to create?

You know as well as I do that anyone in the income bracket that is likely to be affected by this tax has accountants and lawyers guiding them in these types of things and have the paperwork drawn up for them well in advance. This is not grandma sitting around the kitchen table crying when the big bad government takes it all away after grandpa dies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

224. Loss of opportunity affects us all

I don't have $5 million or $1 million, yet this offends my sense of fairness.

[dpibel]

230. Your avatar

I'm sure Dr. King would be right in there pitchin' for the rich with you.

Have you, sir, after all. . .

[Muddleoftheroad]

236. I'm pitching for the poor as well

I just don't like the estate tax. That's it.

[camero]

239. Sorry, you're wrong there.

If the estate made them rich, Dr. King would still advocate taxing them. Because he wanted us ALL to be free.

[prolesunited]

244. Let King speak for himself

Read these quotes and see for yourself if muddle truly represents MLK's thinking.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity....

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality....

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.

I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream -- a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin determines...

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

249. I don't claim to represent Dr. King's thinking

He was a great man and I remember him through my avatar.

Beyond that, I agree with him on many points. But not all.

And, you will note, I was the one arguing to improve opportunities for all.

My point has been and remains that this is a crappy tax.

[muriel_volestrangler]

254. Here's why an inheritance tax is fair

Taxes are aimed at those who can afford to pay them. Since an inheritance is unexpected money, those receiving it can afford to pay a tax on it. By having a starting point of one million dollars, the US allows a lot of inheritances to have no tax paid on them anyway (compare it with the UK, where the threshold is £255,000, and the rate 40%, the same as the top income tax rate).

If a parent wants to provide for their children, they do not wait until they die - which might be a long time in the future; they give them the money when they need it.

Is the gift of money from a parent to a child, while the parent is living, taxed in the US? It isn't in the UK (as long as the parent survives another 7 years - if they die before then, the gift is counted as part of the estate, in a complicated graduated way. The idea behind this is to stop people avoiding the inheritance tax by giving their money away when they've been told they've a short time to live).

[Muddleoftheroad]

258. Unexpected?

Inheritance money has to be the most EXPECTED money on planet Earth. We all die. Most parents I know of make it entirely clear who is getting what and how much.

The problem with giving kids "money as they need it" is that is also taxed above a minor amount.

The idea is not to tax at every transfer. The idea is just to tax and hit people when they are unable or unwilling to fight it. The people best equipped to fight this battle each time have passed and that leaves it to their children, which is appalling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

267. yes, unexpected

you don't know when it will come, and therefore how much it will be. Compare this with wages, a pension, or investment income, which you expect to get each month (or year or whatever). You can't depend on an inheritance for your needs; if you do need it, the person with the money ought to give it to you now, if they care for you (assuming they have more than they need; that's why you wouldn't tax small inheritances).

Taxes aren't fought by the people when they become due; they're
fought by electing representatives to government.

[Nikia]

285. I agree

Sometime in the future I know that my in laws will die and most likely leave us enough money to pay off all our bills, pay our future children's college tuition, and provide money for our retirement. It may be more or less depending on their investments and how much their medical bills end up being with their health problems. It probably will be slightly over the taxable limit. We live a normal middle class life. Whether we end up with a couple million or "only" a couple hundred thousand, it will be a big addition to our current lifestyle. They have helped us out a little by giving us small amounts for things we need. I think that parents can give up to $10,000 to children per year non taxed and I don't think that even counts things like buying them cars or writing a down payment check on a house.

[Muddleoftheroad]

289. Gifts

Actually, I am no tax attorney, but I think $10,000 is the annual gift limit for tax free gifting.

As for the unexpected, lots of people know that as their parents get older, they will receive estates. Many times they are told precisely what is involved -- how much insurance, how much property, etc.

[dawgman]

262. My wife and I made under 50,000 last year, We within Seattle city limits

Which is very high cost of living and we weren't scraping by. If you are barely scraping by at 100,000 per year you got probs no matter where you live. This is one of the problems of US culture. We think we are entitled ot a big plasma screen and a lexus. We aren't. Get over it.

[Isome]

286. $5 million U.S. dollars, anywhere in the country...

is wealthy. No amount of hemming and hawwing, supposing and speculating will change that incontrovertible fact. It won't afford the owner a lifestyle that rivals Oprah or Bill Gates, but there's no logical way to misconstrue it as being a working stiff... even if you live in D.C.

[camero]

115. Money has a limit

Why do you think we have budgets? You can't make opportunity for the bottom without taking some opportunity from the top. There is only so much to go around. Nothing is forever. Nothing.

[IrateCitizen]

90. Maybe that's what needs to happen...

... if, by your choice, you are unduly harming the society that ALL of us, and ALL of our children share TOGETHER.

After all, that's the whole idea of a society. By your argument, I could argue that my town not allowing me to build a ten-story building on my plot of land, due to zoning laws, was trying to "make my choice for me." The fact is, such laws exist because there are instances in which the common good must take precedent over the individual.

Balancing those needs and wants has always been the job of government -- and it's best done in a government in which ALL people have an equal amount of clout. Your wishes for maintenance of wealth through inheritance will only serve to undermine that (as we see in our society today).

[prolesunited]

71. So what you are saying

is that you think it would be a good thing if the U.S. would become a hereditary economic aristocracy? You act as if the inheritance tax takes everything and reduces your family to paupers. You know that is not true and such hyperbole does nothing to advance your argument.

The inheritance tax that affected only the wealthiest 2% in our country? Are you in that category? If you are, hire a good accountant and I'm sure he/she can work it out so your children are going to be taken care of.

Here's some interesting reading for you. Is this the society you would like us to become? If so, perhaps you're in the wrong party.

Dynasties!
MAYBE IT'S TIME for a new set of Fourth of July orations. Only at first blush is there silliness to the idea of the United States--the nation of the Minutemen, John and Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson--becoming a hereditary economic aristocracy. When you think about it, there is evidence for serious concern.

More than a decade ago, the United States passed France to have the highest inequality ratios of any major Western nation. More and more of the country's richest clans have been setting up family offices, captive trust companies and other devices to manage and entrench their swelling fortunes. The elimination of the inheritance tax being sought by the Bush Administration will only make that entrenchment easier.

Politically, we already have a dynasty at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: the first son ever to take the presidency just eight years after it was held by his father, with the same party label. This dynasticism also has its economic side: both Bushes, père et fils, having been closely involved with the rise of Enron, another first for a presidential family, more on which shortly.

http://www.inequality.org/dynasties2.html


Why America's plutocrats gobble up $1,500 hot dogs

Nearly half the benefits of Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 went to the richest 1%, while 60% of this year's cuts will go to taxpayers with incomes of more than $100,000, according to the tax policy center run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution in Washington. Mr. Bush also fought hard to repeal an inheritance tax that affected only the wealthiest 2%, as well as cutting capital gains tax and trying to abolish the tax on dividends.

The Bush cabinet also stands out for its big money background. Every member is a millionaire and, the Center for Public Integrity says, its total net worth is more than 10 times that of the Clinton cabinet. President Bush may not be the cause of America's unequal society, but the members of his administration arguably personify a new plutocracy. In the view of Kevin Phillips, an economic historian and the author of a history of America's rich, “Wealth and Democracy,” you have to go back more than 100 years to find an era when big money and government were in such a tight embrace.

"It's the second plutocracy after the gilded age," Mr. Phillips said. "Laissez-faire is a pretence. Government power and preferment have been used by the rich, not shunned. As wealth concentration grows, especially near the crest of a drawn-out boom, so has upper-bracket control of politics and its ability to shape its own preferment."

http://www.inequality.org/champions2.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Freedom

Face it, anyone who came to America willingly mostly came here for opportunity. Opportunity for them AND their children.

Now, I am not in anybody's 2%, but I would like to be. And if I can muster it, I want to leave that to my children so they can avoid poverty for them and theirs.

Sure we have dynasties -- Bushes, Kennedys, etc. -- and it sucks. But that's not just about money, it's about clout and status and knowing the right (or wrong) people.

I don't want a hereditary aristocracy, but you don't know how important it is for some people to pass along a life's work to their children either.

[camero]

85. They also came

to escape a plutocracy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Depends on where they left

Many just came because they didn't have much and wanted more.

[camero]

94. Sorry

I don't buy the line that everyone who came here did it out of greed.
Plus it was an agrarian society where most could grow their own food and harvest the land. And this country had an abundance of natural resources.

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. Greed

Greed for freedom, greed for land, greed for opportunity, greed to practice their own religions, greed to become wealthy or let their kids become wealthy.

One man's greed is another's desire.

[IrateCitizen]

107. As a self-proclaimed Christian, you of all should realize...

That greed is still greed, whether it is a desire or not. After all, one cannot worship God and Mammon both -- right?

And what was that thing about a camel fitting through the eye of a needle compared with a rich man getting into heaven?

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Christian

Again, I am one and happy to say so. That does not mean I don't wish to care for my children after my death.

Plus, I come from a large family, so I might wish to pass along money to all of them.

And, from what I recall, the camel thing is not quite like we read it. The eye of the needle was what they called a certain type of archway. So it was considered difficult, but not impossible.

[camero]

119. And Jesus telling the rich man?

To take everything he had, give it to the poor, and follow him? The sacrifice of the self was one of the first steps to going to heaven.

Yes, difficult, but not impossible. But it comes from the heart, and when you see it, you start looking at the whole picture and not just your unit.

[IrateCitizen]

122. You beat me to it, camero. (n/t)

[camero]

128. Ah, sorry...lol

:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

189. Giving to charity

Anyone who wants to give everything to charity, well more power to them. I do my part for charity in both money and time. But I also aim to do my part for my family.

[camero]

237. Did you see anything in that verse about charity?

That verse was about self sacrifice. It's not a choice. It's a requirement. There are a number of other verses that go to the same place. Even in the Old Testament.

Have you understood anything I've said or have you just been listening to fundies too much?

[redqueen]

165. Greed is bad

Sorry, but you can't parse words like that when it comes to consideration of your fellow man. By seeking to leave vast sums for your children, you must necessarily make the conscious decision that others' children will be deprived of it. As long as you can believe that is a fair and worthy sentiment, then I suppose your conscience won't bother you and you'll have no trouble believing your soul won't be blemsihed by such 'desires'.


James 5:1-6
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you. (NIV)

[Muddleoftheroad]

194. How we choose to spend or not spend our money is our choice

So if I save my entire life to make a better life for my kids, then I get penalized because others were not as thrifty?

That's not how it should work.

[redqueen]

216. This borders on advocating social darwinism

Do you realize that?

"I save my entire life to make a better life for my kids, then I get penalized because others were not as thrifty?"

Can you say that with a straight face, after telling me that someone was 'scraping by' on $100K / yr? You expect a family of 4 on $35 K to get by with charity, while you say that the purchase of an expensive home such as that is reasonable? Who decides 'thrifty'? I hope not you!

You're not being penalized. You'd be dead in this scenario. And your children aren't being penalized, they're being taxed, just like all the peons, when they EARN their take. Your kids don't get an exemption simply because they didn't have to earn it. IMO they should be taxed more, because they did nothing to deserve it, except win the 'birth canal lottery'. (I like that term -- it really fits)

[Muddleoftheroad]

220. Two examples

The grasshopper and the ant. One saves and saves and saves, the other does not. Both die, but we only tax the estate of the one who saves.

YES, you are being penalized. Your children are the reason you have saved. Your children are an extension of who you are.

As an aside, do you have any children? You keep refering to "birth canal lottery" like having kids is somehow distasteful.

[camero]

227. He still doesn't get it.

Money does not grow on trees. It is a resource just like oil and water. What you get, it has to be taken from someone else.

The more money you print without a resource backing it up, the less it is worth.

You have kids? Do you tell your favorite kid to take all the food and leave the rest hungry? Or do you eat all the food yourself, saying "my kids are weak", and leave none for them?

Sorry, this is the way the world is and money is our food. If you say that one person should be able to get as much money as he can grab, then you are saying that the others can starve.

[prolesunited]

235. No

he REFUSES to get it. Big difference.

[Muddleoftheroad]

238. You're doing the classic, "My way is the only way"

There are lots of ways for government to get revenue. I oppose THIS one.

[camero]

242. And you're doing the class

I got mine-FU. Without thinking of the larger implications.

[Muddleoftheroad]

250. Nope, I don't have mine

I'd like the chance to get it and pass it along however. That's what freedom allows for.

[redqueen]

251. I'm rather glad you used this example

It allows me to discredit that patriarchal, darwinist fable. :)

For the grasshopper represents the artists in society. Those that usually subsist on little economically, yet contribute much. In ancient times societies decided priorities. Some cultures became militaristic and dedicated resources to war. Those cultures are gone, and they have left no legacy save their story. Some cultures dedicated their wealth to art, and we still go visit those places today, those that remain, because they truly contributed to humanity.

To place a dollar value on your children, or anyone else's children, (for they too will grow and become artists or janitors or lawyers) based on what they decide to do with their lives is, to me, abhorrent. To me, the children of a janitor deserve just as much as the children of a stockbroker that vacation at the beach or the national park... that home where they can feel safe and secure. You're saying, in your judgment of those parents who do not have the means to save, that those children are somehow naturally less deserving of these enriching experiences, and it frankly disgusts me.

You speak of not taxing the estates of the poor... do you truly not see that many have no estate to leave? This is not about saving, this is about the financial reward society decides each person should receive. So because society says an artist deserves less money than a doctor you will penalize those people's children????

Those who are fortunate to receive such bounty should be willing to share it. No one is claiming that it should be taken away completely. You are arguing to save a 20% tax as if it were your very life at stake!

I do have children. And when I had them I stopped living my life for myself. I also (unlike others, it seems) realized that it is not JUST my children who are precious. ALL children are equally precious, and deserving of an equal opportunity to enjoy the riches that the world can give.

I, if I win some huge lottery, will not seek to leave it only to my children. For I value no other childs' life less than I value the lives of my own. Just as I ache for knowing how many children in our country go without food or a decent standard of living, I also ache for the children of Iraq, or Africa, for the same reasons... and they do indeed have it much worse than my children or yours.

I'm shocked and appalled that you can so callously place the well-being of your own offspring so far ahead of the well being of the people whom your offspring will share the planet with.

If we are ever to be a nation, a world, united in common cause for the good of all, we MUST do away with this self-centered way of thinking.

And on that note, I wish to end this discussion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

260. Darwinist fables

Well, I like art as much or perhaps even more than the next man. But if you don't earn a living, then you starve. That is not my recommendation, that is reality. So you need, WHEN POSSIBLE, to work and earn money.

So, if you paint a mural in an office and someone pays you $5,000, you do that before painting something you want to paint. Paying the bills is a paramount concern.

So is saving for the future.

Actually, a society DOES pay a doctor more than an artist, then those children get more. That's the way it works. We, in our society, on average, value the life-saving work of doctors more than art. However, I know of many artists who make damn fine livings doing what they do. But what a doctor does is more important. And more marketable, on average.

Yes, all OTHER PEOPLE'S children are equal and deserve equal opportunity. But not your own children. For your own children, you will literally bleed if that's what it takes. If others choose to do so for their children, more power to them.

I do not agree with you that all children are equally precious. Every parent I know considers their own children more precious than those of another.

If a building was on fire and I raced in and could save one child, you can damn well bet it would be my own. Not yours. Not someone else's child. I would do so and try to come back and save the others. But I would save mine first. That is human nature and that is our right. So why can't I take care of mine and scrimp and save and sacrifice without you taking away one fifth of that?

I am arguing for a fair tax structure. I have been arguing for one my entire adult life. I hate our tax structure. I hate the dodges that are built in and only benefit a few. And I hate it when some people are screwed and others not.

Which is what you advocate.

[camero]

263. I don't see how you can say that

when we are talking about taxing inheritances over a certain amount.
Oh, and I am glad you're not a firefighter or EMT because I would most certainly not trust you to save my children.

[Muddleoftheroad]

264. Vague

Sorry your first comment was a little vague.

As for the rest, what human being would not save their child first? Who is this person and why are they raising kids?

Like I said, I'd try to save the others too, but my child first. So sue me.

[camero]

265. Well, it appears that some of us can transcend "human nature"

Because I was ready to give my life for somebody that I never saw again. You keep that attitude, somebody probably will sue you. It's called karma.

[redqueen]

266. "Human Nature"

This is such a fallacy.

Usually when people resort to excusing unenlightened or unreasonable behavior with this term, it's being misused. A more accurate term for the behavior usually rationalized with this term would be "Primitive Nature".

Honestly... the thing which makes us 'human' and separate from most animals is an ability to review our actions and analyze them for morality or ethical standards. Refusing to do that, and couching that refusal as in any way 'human' seems oxymoronic to me.

IMO, what makes us human is our ability and willingness to rise above our primitive instincts. :)

[camero]

268. Thank you

That's a good way of putting it. Primitive. Like "Caveman Think."
:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

270. Not worried in the least

I'd be worried if I answered any other way.

Anyone who would NOT choose their child first is either lying or an unfit parent. You set up the scenario to save one, not save them all, not try and save the world for the life of your child. It's a straight one-for-one deal. I would gladly risk MY life for the life of another child, but I would NOT risk the life of my child for another.

[prolesunited]

274. So, basically the point you're arguing here

Is that you would let another child starve so that your child could have a $5 million inheritance?

[Muddleoftheroad]

275. Wow, not that's marketing

But not truth.

By that definition, we should all immediately not only agree to 100% taxes, but sell everything we own and help the homeless.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not arguing against taxes or helping the helpless. I am arguing against ONE funding mechanism which is blatantly unfair.

[camero]

278. Either ya can't read or ya need critical thinking skills

The point wasn't about giving everything away. The point was about forgetting about your own needs and helping others. True enlightenment.

OK, so how much do you want Shrub's inheritance to be?

[Muddleoftheroad]

279. Family

Have you ever been poor?

I have and, unsurprisingly, I don't want that to happen to my children or their family. If I save my whole life to make that happen, it's my business.

As for *, if you mean what he gets from daddy, nada.

[camero]

280. yes, I have been poor.

I've been working since I was 7. And I'm poor again because of my illness. With no insurance. Have you ever been poor?

Now, answer me this. It's ok for your kid to get an inheritance, but Bush should get nada, right? So, it's ok, unless you're on a different team, is that what your saying? Because if you make this the law, Bush would get his also.

[prolesunited]

281. Just engaging in the same hyberbole

and emotional appeals that you seem to enjoy so much. :D

A number of people have presented you with actual facts and figures, cited historical trends and examples of why the inheritance tax is good for society and democracy. Instead of tackling ANY of these points all you've been able to come up with is that it isn't fair and you don't like it. Perhaps you need to work on a better argument.

However, I guess it would be difficult to logically argue in favor of massive accumulations of wealth.

[camero]

282. It's a weak way to argue, I must say

I'm just glad you guys used research to back me up on the consequences. :)

Plus, I think he's being a hypocrite on this issue.

[camero]

277. he's not

Read his post above. He wants his kid to have a $1 billion inheritance. I was the one that suggested $5 million.

[camero]

110. The Indians were appalled at some of our greed

I remember one quote from a cherokee chief where he asked,"Sell the land? Why not just sell the water or the air, or even the sun and the moon? How can you sell something that is not rightfully yours?"

Of course, they've already gone past that point. Greed is an addiction, not a desire.

[IrateCitizen]

81. FACTS on the estate tax

You seem to be pretty unclear as to what an estate tax is, or how it works, based on your posts.

The current estate tax is set at a threshold of $650,000. What that means is, for a two-parent household, the threshold for NON-TAXABLE inheritance would be at $1.3 million -- $650k per parent.

The old law had a clause in it to bump that number up to $1 million per person. Ergo, a $2 million tax-free inheritance for a two-parent family.

After that threshold is met, the tax is NOT a 100% seizure of all assets. It is a TAX, a seizure by the government of a reasonable percentage of a financial transaction (which is what an inheritance really is) for the purposes of creating governmental revenues. An inheritance is a financial transaction that is little different from the sale of a stock, and both are taxed accordingly.

Do you truly believe that by bequeathing $100 million tax-free to your children, you would be serving their interests (or society's) in any tangible manner? The government would receive no revenue from the transaction that its laws and legal system made possible, and your children could live a life of sloth, never having to work a day for the rest of their existence.

That hardly sounds like the kind of society I'd want to live in. To be quite honest, if I were to receive a large inheritance (I'd consider large to be under even the current threshold), I'd give a large portion of it to charity. And when I have children, I would not want to give them some kind of outrageous sum that would dull their ambition to do anything meaningful with their lives.

After all, that was Andrew Carnegie's justification for giving away all of his fortune. And Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes warned of the need for an estate tax in order to prevent the formation of an American aristocracy.

But, I guess that's an idea that you're completely comfortable with, right?

[Silverhair]

132. Have you ever priced good farmland? And remember, you

need more that a few arces to have a real farm. The farm I grew up on, (We were sharecroppers.) had over 1,000 acres.

[IrateCitizen]

140. Answer the question, silverhair

The question is not the cost of good farmland, the question is how many family farms that wanted to continue farming were forced to close due to the estate tax. Cite just one example.

And if you're upset about the hardship that accompanies family farming, don't get upset about inheritance taxes. Put the blame where it really lies -- at the feet of agribusiness and their lackeys in Congress.

[politicat]

272. hah... $13 million. My Family is going through this right now.

My great grandfather is 90. Doing okay, all things considered, but he's 90. He is sole holder of the family farm in Indiana, and was due to pass it on to his surviving children, my Grandmother and great uncle, but my great uncle died in more than a year ago in November, so it's all coming to this branch of the family (which is fine with all on this side, cuz none of us liked his choice of careers or 2nd wife, or behaviors...)
This is a working farm, currently our farm manager grows organics (Grandpa never saw the sense in buying all that fancy fertilizer when the pigs and the cows were putting out so much, so when organic soy and corn became a big thing, Jacky switched us over and got us certified.) and splits the profits 50-50 with the family trust. He likes the job, doesn't want to own the land (he owns the parcel his house sits on) and it all works out in the end.

The several hundred acres, plus buildings plus equipment is valued by independent appraisal at 11.7 million USD. (We don't live like that, and the income is a far different kettle of fish.)

We do not have to pay the inheritance tax at all. We have already run this through the accountants and though the IRS.

So whoever is saying that family farms (and realize ours is large and in prime real estate area in Indiana, being on the outskirts of Indianapolis) are endangered by the inheritance tax is buying into the BFEE myth. It's not so. The "family farms" that are endangered are hobby farms owned by those who are super rich enough to not really work one. Those of us that really have farms know better.


Politicat (who is one of the executors of the family trust, being the eldest grandchild.)

[dpibel]

43. Link please

This was indeed a loud Republican talking point. But then, much to the surprise of those of us who really trust Republicans, it turned out that nobody could discover one single instance of a family farm being lost or bankrupted because of the estate tax.

I assume you've found one or more instances, and I'd really like to see them, because I wouldn't want to be putting out the disinformation that it's never happened.

Thanks.

[ComerPerro]

45. If that is the case

Then why the hell didn't the Republicans simply introduce an exemption for farms?

I am guessing that its because Republicans really don't give a fuck.
They didn't repeal the estate tax in order to help farmers. They did it to help themselves. Like all Republican policies, if it doesn't benifit the wealthy then it will never see the light of day.

[JanMichael]

49. It's astounding how wrong you are. Truly.

http://www.arktimes.com/030110coverstorya.html

"The argument for repealing estate taxes has been that the tax often forced people who inherited family farms and busineses to sell the farms and businesses in order to pay the tax, but there is almost no record of that happening. Farms and family businesses make up less than 3 percent of the estate tax filings in the United States. Estate taxes on family farms and businesses can be stretched out over 14 years."

Try to pick better talking points:-)

[SonofMass]

60. You posted an article on Arkansas state taxes by

Ernest Dumas.

[JanMichael]

252. Do you own damned research then, k'? Wait I'll give you MORE.

"Keep in mind that the inheritance tax, even before President Bush took office, was paid by fewer than 2 percent of all estates. Reforms then in progress would have further narrowed its reach by exempting estates of up to $1 million ($2 million for couples.) Farmers? During the debate in 2001, the American Farm Bureau couldn't cite a single family farm lost to the estate tax. Shopkeepers? Turns out small business owners pay less than 1 percent of all estate taxes.

No, the ones with a big stake here are the fortunate 50,000--the tiny fraction of U.S. families who count their wealth in eight figures or more."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0311210415nov21,1,623146.story?coll=chi-printcommentary-hed

Sorry but this shit gets REAL old.

[camero]

253. It sure does

Seems like we're going in circles. They just can't understand that the earth isn't just thier house.

[Silverhair]

177. Thank You. I didn't know that.

There are so many issues that it is impossible to be fully knowledgeable on all of htem. On some issues I am highly knowledgeable and will to toe to toe with anybody, and on others, such as this one, I can't get much deeper than talking points that we have read in some column.

Thank you for taking the time to give me that informations.

I have no problem with the concept of an inheritence tax. The question is at what level it should kick in, and for what percentage. I was under the impression that it kicked in more harshly and at a lower level.

[prolesunited]

196. I'm glad that you have taken part

in this thread and learned something from it — I know I have and I was the one who started it. LOL! .

As you said, there so many issues out there, it is hard to keep up with them all. That's what's so great about DU, with so many well-read and well-versed people here.

In addition, the media only touches upon the surface and rarely gets to the meat, wherein you really discover the truth. There was a conscious effort to change the terminology from inheritance tax to death tax to fool people. Not everyone has an inheritance, but everyone dies. They wanted you to think that you may be affected, not just the top 2 percent.

[IrateCitizen]

200. Silverhair -- I just sent you a PM

BTW -- you're a big person for admitting your mistake so graciously. Not a trait seen very often on these boards.

:toast:

[lostnfound]

283. Yes, kudos to those who keep an open heart & open mind. n/t

[SharonAnn]

59. Actually, the facts are that NO family farm was lost for

inheritance taxes.

This story is just right-wing spin. Or you just call it lies.

[Hammie]

151. You can't be serious

In this entire country, not one farm was sold to pay the inheritance tax?

It might be uncommon, but your assertion that in never happens is incredible.

[IrateCitizen]

163. Here's a citing of it for you

From United for a Fair Economy's Myth vs. Fact regarding the Estate Tax...

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close.
Fact: This issue has been wildly exaggerated. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell.
Fact: As with family businesses, this issue has been distorted. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.


IOW, if there WERE a case, the AFBF would have had it on hand. But they didn't -- which is telling.

[Hammie]

152. You can't be serious

In this entire country, not one farm was sold to pay the inheritance tax?

It might be uncommon, but your assertion that in never happens is incredible.

[redqueen]

166. I find it amusing that so many assert it's happened

Yet we still have not seen one single solitary cited example.

I never believed it was 100% untrue, myself, actually, but this inability to provide evidence is getting a bit ridiculous.

[bleedingheart]

89. My family owned a farm and that story is all hooey...

you know what really put our farm under...the fact that no one wanted to farm it anymore...so my greatuncle carved up the land and sold it.

Careful estate planning will help to avoid the loss of any successful farm....so that myth about losing the family farm is just that...a myth.

Farming is risky and most farms go under not due to inheritance taxes but due to a combination of bad luck (drought, diseases of livestock..etc) and poor fiscal management...they don't have enough cash stockpiled for a rainy day...

[Isome]

284. That's a lie that's been exposed for a l-o--n-g time now!

You can't find one "family farm" that has been killed/destroyed/put out of business by the estate tax. Why do you still believe that? Where is your proof?

Here's mine:

.::.Facts.::.:

Farms —Only three of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.

Businesses—Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.

Pat Wolff, a D.C. lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau says, "The government can take almost half of your belongings when you die." However he could not say how many families have actually been forced to sell off their farmland by the estate tax. His response to the question was, "We don't have those numbers and have never seen those numbers. All of our economic arguments are anecdotal."


Be careful people. Being "centrist" should not be a cover for being ignorant of the facts and/or repeating the lies started by the rabid right.

[camero]

3. I'll try to answer your first question

Too many people struggling to survive in a world of limited resources eventually spawns conflict. Basic issues of fairness mean that all should have the opportunity to succeed.

When inequality is this far apart, it stifles the lower classes opportunity to succeed because scarce resources are hoarded at the top.

[yagotme]

97. Hoarding Resources

How are these resources hoarded? If they just sat on them, used the money for mattress stuffing, wouldn't that defeat their purpose for making more and/or enjoying their wealth? Isn't it usually invested, or spent on luxuries, that are made in factories by workers, creating a demand, and jobs? Resources have a market value of zero if hoarded, they must be utilized or sold to another to realize their full value. IMHO

[camero]

102. all long term investments are an example of hoarding

Because it just sits there and does not circulate. As what should be noticeable to everyone now, There is no "Job creation" when the vast majority of wealth is at the top.

[yagotme]

145. Hoarding

investments? Isn't that a misnomer? If you invest in something, you are giving it to another person/entity to do something constructive with. Putting money into a mutual fund divides your money amongst several companies, who are in the business to make money. As the mutual fund makes money, you make money. Is there another "long term investment" you are specifying? Like Gov't bonds, which I wouldn't sink a plug nickel into, because of the horrible reurn rate? I don't thing the head of Gm or Ford is putting his money there, perhaps Treasuries, or some other type bond. But what is a bond? Most cases, money given to a gov't entity for a specific time, sometimes for a specific purpose. "Gov't debt", in other words. What does govt do with this? A school bond, i.e., is used to build a school. Construction jobs. Teaching, janitorial jobs. Is that money really just sitting there????

[camero]

148. Its moved temporarily

And with interest, so it has to go back. Unless of course you come up with a grand scheme to swindle them out of it.

Accumulation of funds at the top does not "trickle down", it merely goes back to the top.

[yagotme]

155. Interest

But the "interest" I receive, isn't that from their own income? I am giving them money to do something I cannot do, that they cannot do without my money, and they pay me back with interest out of some of the profits they make. So, what???? I make money, they make money, and if you didn't decide to invest in this, you didn't make money. So, am I to give you money that I received in this manner, just because you decided not to invest, and risk your own money? If this is the case, and I lose money, does that give me the right to take money from you?

[camero]

167. You're taking this way off the path.

The point is is that money is not limitless. If someone takes 3/4 of the food on the table, there is less to go around for the others, even if they put it in the fridge for later. Money is our food.

[redqueen]

170. It's not all black and white

Certainly some investment does create jobs. However, as evidence over the past 30 years shows, most jobs are moving overseas, and investment in companies to move jobs overseas does nothing but further the wealth gap here, and foster the horrible working conditions in other countries.

If we were to see workers rights instituted on a global scale, this investment leading to jobs theory might be much more successful than it is now. However, as it is now, it's a losing proposition for nearly everyone except the lucky investors.

A good right wing argument is that the workers in other countries benefit, but when you consider their living conditions, the fact that child labor is used, etc... it's really nothing more than a thinly-disguised attempt to continue to keep the lowest among us down. When children are forced to work, they cannot be educated. When parents are barely able to provide for their children and themselves, there is no substantial stimulus to their or any other economy, except, as pointed out above, for the owners of the plants, the stockholders, etc.

In addition, conversely, the 'bubble up' model for economic growth (as opposed to trickle down, which is what you're describing), has proven to be far more successful at expanding economies and growing wealth. In the 50's, far more average earning families were able to purchase homes, new cars, etc. The buying power of the majority of the citizenry can only generate real growth when they can afford to buy things like homes and quality products, and not just rent apartments and shop at WalMart.

[yagotme]

294. Investing

in acompany here in the US, like the example I stated in my previous post, would create jobs here. In your "bubble up" theory, where does the money come from? In the 50's, the family income may have been average, but I do believe the tax rate was a lot lower, creating more disposable income. If you raise taxes to provide for the "lower end", as I believe what you may be suggesting in the "bubble up", then you lose a portion of the disposable income of the mid/upper class. The higher the taxes, the higher the proportion. Then, the lower class still goes to Wal-mart, but the quality goods made here in the US have lost their marketplace as the better off can no longer afford to pay the higher prices. What will this then do to the US factory base? They can't compete, so they will move their shop overseas, and this will continue. This is the trickle down that has been happening, with the higher taxes imposed.

[sistersofmercy]

5. I believe...

the same PNAC idealogues seek to further the class gap by eliminating the middle class except a few select small business owners which have allied with the thugs through tax incentives.

[Iverson]

6. basically agree

I think that there will always be difference between individuals, so I do not argue for complete forced redistribution of wealth, but a sense of civilization demands equality of opportunity, which we do not now have. It also demands that we don't just leave citizens without minimal means of survival.

To my eye, differences in wealth like the examples mentioned above are obscene and have nothing to do with individual effort. Unfortunately, our cultural religion postulates that the market is a meritocracy, which is of course why Bush got into Ivy League colleges and was installed as president.

[skippysmom]

7. I'll take on one aspect of this...

"The author asserts, "Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?"

What we're seeing is a very wealthy upper class that has, for all intents and purposes, retreated from society as a whole. They live in gated communities, send their kids to private schools, use private gyms instead of parks, fly in private jets instead of on the airlines, etc. They don't even need to see the poor or even the middle class, except those who serve them.

They also wield a remarkable amount of political power, either as donors or as politicos themselves. As a result, the powers that be are not concerned with things like universal health care, better public education, providing funding for arts or recreation or other "frills" because these cuts wouldn't affect them one bit. They'd rather see their taxes cut and services slashed to people they don't even see most of the time.

It's frightening, IMHO.

[yagotme]

104. Disagree

I would have to disagree with the author's question regarding the great gaps in wealth being incompatible with the social cohesion. What small child doesn't want to grow up to be rich? To be a star basketball, baseball, whatever, multimillion dollar player. And if they do "retreat form society", they have the resources to do so. The gated communities are there to keep out those who would come in and take what was not theirs to begin with. They can afford to send their kids to private schools, for the better education (that our public schools unfortunately often lack), and for the increased aspect of safety. They, through their hard work and/or inheritance, neither which I disfavor, is theirs to spend as they see fit.

Providing funding for public programs has always cost money, and it seems, the more money spent, the less product we get for it.

[redqueen]

173. Regarding 'wants'

Yes, presently children are reared mostly to admire great wealth, and to aspire to achieve that as a goal, as opposed to doing some needed good in the world.

Right now there are over ten million orphans left parentless by the AIDS epidemic. Because there is no 'wealth reward' for working on a solution to this problem, it's largely ignored. Even by those earning many millions of dollars, who spend their cash on luxuries rather than have any empathy or show any willingness to even raise awareness of these issues.

The ability to disconnect onesself from your fellow man is not something to be discussed lightly. People constantly talk about religious values, spiritual values, etc. However when it comes to walking the talk very few seem concerned. If you decide that the pleasure you get from your material posessions is more important than the connection you have with your fellow man, and that this situation is acceptable and worthwhile, then we are truly in a spiritual crisis in this country.

All the handwringing and hyperbole about gay lovers having the right to marry one another and be legal partners for life cannot erase the blight on those who would condone such inhuman behavior.

Your argument about waste is a good one though. There are massive amounts of fraud and this must be stopped. However, you don't decide to burn down your house because you have a leaky faucet. You fix the faucet.

[dpibel]

181. You're making me dizzy

You say that you disagree that great gaps in wealth are incompatible with social cohesion.

Then you describe the wealth retreating from society, but say it's OK because they earned the right.

See that? Retreating from society is, well, really not all that cohesive.

As for your parting shot, it's an opinion. If you'd like to show me some facts, I'd be interested. Since social programs are getting defunded at a great rate, you may have a little difficulty with your point.

I could say, "Proividing funding for weapons has always cost money, and it seems the more we spend the less we get." At least I'd be right about spending more. Then we could argue over whether we're getting value for the money.

[yagotme]

295. Reply

Not all the wealthy are doing so, just those who desire to. Like a hermit, or a homeless person that chooses that lifestyle. Their "wealth" is still in society, every time they pay their workers, buy a new toy, invest (and this has gone around the barn once already) their money, pay their satellite bill, whatever. If millionaire so-and-so wishes to live on a mountain retreat, so be it. I keep hearing #'s here, on how low a percentage of the population are in the upper figures. If so few wish to become detached from society, so? Does every person have to physically contribute himself for society to prosper? I don't believe so, but that is mine own opinion. I believe one has the freedom to do as one will, as long as it's legal .

As to my "opinion" on my parting shot, whenever money passes through a bureaucracy, some always gets skimmed off the top. All the middlemen have to be paid, otherwise, why would they be there? Even in most "volunteer" organizations, they lose a certain percentage for admin, expenses, etc. That's why, when you give money to a charity, you should check out the percentage of the actual money reaching the "street". If they don't have the info, or won't tell you, I personally would pass on them. You haven't heard of this?

I don't have the "facts" at hand, but I do recall seeing on pamphlets, percentages of money for this and that in the organization.

[prolesunited]

186. Just because people aspire to something

that means it's good and right. Funny, I remember not-so-good things happened to the last person who said, "Let them eat cake."

What you are suggesting is the creation of a type of caste system based on wealth, not that it doesn't already exist, but is it necessarily right and good to perpetuate it. All of the progress that has been made in creating a kinder, gentler society is being dismantled.

What period of history would you like to go back to?

I guess what you're describing is nice if you're the one at the top, but you better watch your back for all of those left at the bottom. History has shown they have a funny way of turning on you.

[yagotme]

296. I don't recall

stating going back in history to any certain point. I like looking ahead, but to look back occasionally, to see what has worked and what hasn't. And, here in the US, if you're at the bottom, you have ways to get to the top, if you have the mind and desire to do so. Nobody ever promised you success, just the freedom to attempt it. And I'm glad to see that you agree with me, that the system already exists. And until a better idea/system comes along, I think I'll go along for the ride. I haven't viewed anything yet, like Communism, Socialism, or any other type of system that says I work X amount, and get paid X amount, that I cannot make over X amount, unless I am a member of the gubmnt.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting a revolution, by your comments????

[rman]

8. one more point

between 1970 and 2000; the higher the income, the more it has increased.

"What has been happening is a extraordinary pulling apart of the income distribution. Traditionally people look at income distribution by "quintiles", by blocks of 20%.
But that is not where the action is. It is not in the top 10%, it is not even in the top 5%.

To really see what is going on you need to look at the top 1%, the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%.
Then you discover that there has been an explosion of income on the very top of the scale.

top 1%
1970 9%
2000 22%

top 0.1%
1970 2.8%
2000 11%

top 0.01%
1970 1%
2000 5%
"

"What went wrong"
Paul Krugman
rtsp://real.dialnsa.edu/REAL_BEARD/spring2003_events/schwartz.rm (realplayer)


that's about 2 times increase for the top 1%
about 3 times increase for the top 0.1%
and a five-fold increase for the top 0.01% : the really really really rich gained the most.
Of course nobody notices this when looking at 20% blocks. Just another example of media manipulation.

[pmbryant]

11. Restrain the super-wealthy

I decided to attack your questions one-by-one. Hopefully, my answers aren't too incoherent.

The author asserts, "Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?

Completely agree. When the 'wealth gap' becomes too disproportionate, the interests of the super-wealthy become completely disconnected from the interests of the public at large. And at the same time, the super-wealthy are able to exercise more control over the political process than ever before. And thus the workings of the government get turned against the public at large and in favor of the super-wealthy. Viewed this way, the Bush regime is the logical outcome of what has been happening in this country for the last 2 decades. :-(

Pervading American society is the belief that we make our own fate and everyone starts our with an equal opportunity. True or false?

The belief is certainly there. If the current situation persists for another generation or two, this idea may slowly fade away. Though we Americans definitely don't let go of our myths quickly.

Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?

The idea, as I think of it, should be to restrain the super-wealthy (not punish, and not all of the 'rich'), in order to benefit the vast majority of the population (not just the 'poor'). How can we get that into a TV-friendly punch line? :shrug:

Unfortunately, if the estate tax repeal is allowed to stand, one of the main restraints on the super-wealthy that is still in place will be gone, and the current bad situation will get even worse.

:scared:

If we allow economic inequality because we believe in social equality — the basic fairness of the race — is it not the government's responsibility to make sure the race actually IS fair?

Absolutely. I suspect that won't be too controversial on this site. :-)

I what ways is the race to the top not fair? What role, if any, should government play?

Probably the primary way, that I am aware of at least, is the gross inequalities in the quality of education. Government's role should be to more equitably fund public schools, and to do so at a level that provides a high-quality education for all. Perhaps that will be more expensive than the current public school system, I don't know, but it is certainly a more appropriate use of public funds than tax writeoffs for fat cat GOP contributors.

Of course, many other kinds of government activity are required to ensure that the race to the top is fair, and that the top then do not keep all the spoils for themselves. Probably more than I can figure out right now (or ever?). ;-)

--Peter

[sable302]

15. It comes down to corporate law

Aren't there benefits for companies who incorporate, mainly regarding the limiting of liability for the owners and raising money by selling shares?

The benefits corporations receive can be balanced by placing restrictions on CEO compensation, no? Can a pay ratio between average salary and CEO salary be established by law without getting everyone freaked out about 'creeping socialism' etc...?


I realize that if we believe in the free market and democrary, we have to accept disparity in wealth as a fact, but labor is also a market, where employers and employees compete for wages etc... So doesn't it make sense for employees to organize so that they have the best possible position to compete?

But, to hear people talk the last 20 or so years, you'd think that all unions were evil satanic plots to undermine America or something. It's as if the merican worker expects to fail and likes it.

[dkamin]

17. This all started

With the empowerment of corporations. Dominant corporations, which are run autocratically for the singular purpose of profit, and are closest in gubernatorial style and ideology to Nazism, are incompatible with democracy.

I think that corporations, as investment centers and producers of goods, can and should be valuable components of our society; however, they cannot be allowed to have any influence on the political process, as their inherent goals are contrary to those of democracy.

in answer to your questions, here are my suggestions.

1) Antitrust doctrine, break up the trusts, both vertical (meat packers) and horizontal (GE, Fox, Walmart) monopolies
2) Pass comprehensive legislation, including public campaign financing, to break the stranglehold of lobbyists on our politicians
3) Electoral system reform, to break the grip of the two party system and encourage the success of more parties (some sort of Proportional representation or runoff voting system)
4) A new wealth tax on accumulated capital (including real estate) in excess of $5 million, used to fund a new federalized public education program. Connect the two- "this tax will only be used to finance public education"- to help passage. This tax would increase government revenues, improve public education dramatically, and provide a permanent kick to the economy much more efficient than Bush's tax cut, as wealth would no longer just sit there in the bank; people would be encouraged to spend it on non-capital items

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. I disagree a lot

But let focus on one thing. How do you tax wealth?

I mean, if you tax known assets like stocks, that is pretty easy. Even land, you can use the assessed value, though that is often far from correct.

But what about all the other stuff -- jewlery, antiques, art, cars, etc.? A little of that is on the books, much is off the books. Do you propose to send assessors into every home?

This is not a small issue. Paintings can sell for millions of dollars. How do you track that? How do you track wealth that is out of the country? Let's say I buy land in Bermuda or a house in Australia?

[dpibel]

135. Probate

Part of a probate is an inventory of the estate. That includes million-dollar paintings.

Of course, you will say, "But what if they just don't mention it? What if they hide it?"

Which is another way of saying, "Aren't rich people just cheats and common criminals?"

Now, I would tend to agree with that proposition. But you've proclaimed your earnest desire to be one of those two per centers, and you might want to consider how you're portraying your own aspirations.

One other thing: When great wealth gets passed along via inheritance, everybody wants their cut. You'd be surprised how punctilious those heirs can be about getting the full value probated.

[Muddleoftheroad]

226. The poster was recommending a wealth tax

Not a tax on estates.

How do you handle a wealth tax?

[dpibel]

240. My bad

One answer: the same way you handle any other tax (or should, but don't in this society): punish the cheaters.

[Muddleoftheroad]

247. Lots harder

Unless you send in wealth inspectors into every home, people would be encouraged to cheat. Hell, most don't even realize that some of the things they have are of value.

[yagotme]

297. Good point

Muddle, as my wife loves to go garage saleing, and to auctions. Just 'cause we get lucky, buy a painting that was in someone's attic for $50.00, and it turns out to be a Rembrandt, worth in the millions? I'd have to sell the painting to pay the taxes, and the reason I bought it was to appreciate it. Where's the fairness in that???

[DjTj]

18. A capitalist taxation system can counter Social Darwinism

<i>Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?</i>

A taxation system in a capitalist democracy should seek to extract an equal amount of utility from each citizen. This is the fairest way to do things, and our tax system is completely misguided in its attempts to do this.

The cornerstone of our tax system takes money from wages, which constitute a disproportionate amount of income for the poor. We tax capital gains at a lower rate, which constitute a disproportionate amount of income for the rich.

We try to correct for this by putting in a progressive rate and a large estate tax, but we constantly have to add in exemptions in an endless quest to make our tax system more "fair"?

The problem is, no politician has a consistent definition of fair. It's easy for Republicans to point to something like the estate tax as unfair while Democratics can always claim the rich should be taxed more. Unfortunately, our tax system provides no way of finding out who's right.

What would really be fair is taxing every one based on utility. Why not start with a basic premise like: everyone in a democracy should contribute equally to the government. We all get one vote and we all enjoy the same protections, so why shouldn't we all contribute equally?

Now this might seem like an endorsement for a flat tax, but a flat tax is fundamentally unequal. $10 to someone making $20k a year means a lot more than $10 to someone making $200k. Even comparing percentages, $10 to someone making $20k a year probably means more than $100 to someone making $200k. For the $20k person, taxing him an extra $10 will affect the food on the table, while for the $200k person $100 may only affect how big his TV will be. The tax system should tax people at the rate that takes away equal amounts of value, which may not be equal dollar amounts.

In the above example, our current progressive income tax does fine, but where our tax system fails is in taxing the person who makes $200k from his inherited $5 million trust fund at a lower rate than the person who had a really good year running his small business and earned $200k for the first time. It's not just how much money you make in a year, it's how much money you have that determines how much money is worth to you.

Our tax system should be taxing the small business owner at a lower rate and the trust fund baby at a higher rate. That's the only way we're going to help people make it from a lower bracket into the higher bracket. Right now, there's a big barrier to becoming rich and you are taxed heavily in that process, but once you get there, you don't have to give back much at all.

So, I guess we should try to account for overall wealth in the tax system if we want to make things more fair... we'll probably run into problems with people moving money overseas if we try to count assets; a national sales tax (i.e. an unlimited deduction for savings) might be the best way to implement this...

[sable302]

21. tax system based on values

not just income. $20 to a $20,000 earner means better food, whereas $200 to a $200,000 earner means better tv's, I believe is how you put it. That's valuing food over electronics, just like small business should be valued over trust funds (work valued over wealth).

I'm with ya all the way, except for sales tax, unless non-luxury items are made exempt, though it would force us to decide what is luxury and what is necessity. So many Americans never learned the difference between wants and needs.

[prolesunited]

36. Very interesting perspective

I liked many of the ideas that you presented. Was that something you conceived yourself or are there others touting the same philosophy?

You addressed the primary concern many have with the flat tax quite well.

BTW, welcome to DU, DjTj! :hi:

[yagotme]

121. Flat Tax, and "Fair"

IMHO, a flat tax is a flat tax. 10% is 10%. Someone making $20,000 is still paying an equitable share of the tax burden as the person making $2 mil. If you want to jack that up a bit, add a national tax on items over, say, $1500. A $1500 car will get you to work. A $200 tv gives you the same information as a $1500+ tv. So on, etc. There is no human way to make it "fair", as we are humans, and everyone has their own opinion as to what "fair" is. "Fair" may be construed as dividing the national debt equally amongst all taxpayers, as we all utilize some service or another. "Fair" may be having the likes of Bill Gates and co. pay off the entire national debt out of their own pockets. "Fair" may be making congress pass no more spending until current revenues have equalled debt. Taxing the wealthy to give to the less wealthy, has not worked very well for the past 50 years. "Give" is the key word, as gifts are often squandered.

There is no "fair" in the world, unless it's the county one down the road next summer.

[dpibel]

139. "to give to the less wealthy"

Y'know, it's actually a very small part of your tax dollar that gets "given" to the less wealthy.

The first 50-plus cents of that tax buck goes to the military machine, and a very small slice of that gets paid to members of the military.

After that, you're paying, IIRC, 20 or 30 cents for interest on the national debt.

In fact, the programs that most directly represent "giving to the less wealthy," AFDC and food stamps, barely register on the radar -- less than a nickel out of your tax dollar.

Saying that giving to the less wealthy hasn't worked for the last 50 years (did it work before that? what happened?) is a bit like squirting a garden hose into a house fire, and when that doesn't work, concluding, "Well, you can't put out a fire with water."

If you're really exercised about waste of tax dollars, how about concentrating on the fact that the US spends more on its military than the next 25 or so countries combined. You also might want to think about the fact that the Pentagon can't account for a trillion bucks.

After you get that sorted out, come talk to me about throwing money at needy people.

[yagotme]

150. Tax $

The last 50 years have been the timeframe of the "Great Society", in which a vast attempt to raise the poor by taxing the wealthy. As I said in the previous post, it is not working well. We still have the poor, and from the comments on this site, more than ever. So, is it working? Do we need to gush more money down to the poor, until the fire is extinguished, or we run out of money?

As far as the military, with 6 1/2 years of active duty, I'm proud to say I served, and we may spend more than other countries, but where are our troops serving today? In countries that can't handle their own problems, and I don't mean just Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean since the 1940's. With a world-wide responsibility, UN and NATO combined, our troops go more and do more than the rest of the world combined. Of course we spend more, but if those countries we've helped out, pay us what our troops were worth, then we wouldn't have such an output of funds. If they got their own butts in gear, and fielded their own troops for UN/NATO "exercises" exclusively, do you think our cash outlay would be so high? Perhaps we should just sit back, lock our gates, and tell the rest of the world to help themselves, but just better leave us alone. that way, we could cut back on our military spending, and do a lot more praying.

As far as accounting for money, I'm surprised Congress can come up with that figure, considering the way they keep their own books.

Sorted out enough?

[IrateCitizen]

174. Where to begin, where to begin?

The last 50 years have been the timeframe of the "Great Society", in which a vast attempt to raise the poor by taxing the wealthy.

Wrong. The "Great Society" was a slogan started by Lyndon Johnson, a program aimed at combatting poverty after reports began coming out of Appalachia showing the destitution and poverty there. It essentially collapsed with the US involvement of the Vietnam War -- due primarily to the inability of funding both "guns and butter". And it has nothing to do with the highly progressive tax rates that came out of WWII, in which people in the middle income brackets were actually taxed much less than people in the same brackets today -- leading to a huge increase in indicators like small business entrepreneurship, home ownership, etc.

What has happened over the past 30 years or so is an undermining of the system of progressive taxation and investment in public infrastructure that helped spur the post WWII boom, along with the rise of influence of speculative capital and the migration of our manufacturing base overseas by transnational corporations seeking the highest rate of return.

As far as the military, with 6 1/2 years of active duty, I'm proud to say I served, and we may spend more than other countries, but where are our troops serving today? In countries that can't handle their own problems, and I don't mean just Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean since the 1940's. With a world-wide responsibility, UN and NATO combined, our troops go more and do more than the rest of the world combined.

Where our troops serve is not based on "countries that can't handle their own problems," it's based on strategic interests. It's based on three things: natural resources, market access, and pools of cheap labor. Anything about "democracy" or "freedom" or "free elections" is little more than code talk.

Of course we spend more, but if those countries we've helped out, pay us what our troops were worth, then we wouldn't have such an output of funds.

We don't just spend more -- we spend more than the next 25 nations around the world COMBINED. But such is the price of empire, is it not?

Perhaps we should just sit back, lock our gates, and tell the rest of the world to help themselves, but just better leave us alone. that way, we could cut back on our military spending, and do a lot more praying.

Not gonna happen, because it would mean that we would no longer have free access to all of those resources and markets. Hard to run international rackets when you don't have the muscle to back them up. I'd suggest you read a little something about former Marine Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (a 2x MOH awardee) -- specifically, his "War is a Racket" speech. You might just learn something.

As far as accounting for money, I'm surprised Congress can come up with that figure, considering the way they keep their own books.

Well, it's a helluva lot better than the Pentagon, who can't account for TRILLIONS they've received over the past 25 years!

Sorted out enough?

The only thing that's sorted out is that you rely excessively on misinformation and unfounded opinion as factual basis for your argument.

[yagotme]

298. Reply

Okay, if our troops are serving in other countries for our interests, why is that? Is it because the government there will no longer trade with us? Wouldn't Iraq have traded with us if we had just opened the door? How about the Balkans? Afghanistan? Korea? Viet Nam? Beirut? Has every place our troops been sent been for our own interests? Yes, but not just financial. How much capital was lost, human and otherwise, during Republican and Democratic leaderships? And you talk of empire? Didn't I state in my post, that we should be paid what our troops are worth, when we basically provide a police service to those nations that cannot police themselves?

And we might lose access to a lot of markets, but we would put all those corporations out of business that move overseas and use child labor to produce goods to sell to us.

And in regards to Gen Butler, I haven't read anything of his, is this in a book, or just some papers somewhere? I am somewhat familiar with him, serving with MarCor Base, Camp S. D. Butler, Okinawa, for 4 years.

Misinformation: I stated our forces are being basically put on call by the UN/NATO for police/military duties in other countries as they see fit, as long as we agree to go there. Am I wrong here? Are the top 25 nations combined you spoke of willing to put out the same amount we are doing, to supplement/replace our forces? No, didn't think so. Countries that can't handle their own problems, like mentioned above, that often REQUEST assistance, don't exist?

Unfounded opinion: Where are your facts and figures? I don't see you making any in your argument, mostly giving opinions of your own, as you accuse me of doing. Isn't that mostly of what this board, and others, is? Opinions?

[prolesunited]

179. Judging by your talking points

are you sure you're at the right site?

[Hammie]

156. Sad but true

"Y'know, it's actually a very small part of your tax dollar that gets "given" to the less wealthy."

Far more of most peoples tax dollars go to people that are wealthier than they are. Social Security is a prime example. The elderly are one of the wealthiest groups and young struggling workers are taxed to provide income to much wealthier retired folks.

Farm subsidies are probably the same, but I don't know as much about who are the typical recipients of those.

[redqueen]

176. Farm subsidies

The vast majority of farm subsidies are given to large, corporate farms.

Not only is this unfair to family farmers, it's also very damaging to the environment.

Additionally, the increasing competitiveness of agribusiness has led to the inclusion of dangerous substances in our foods.

Kucinich is the best candidate on family farms. He's endorsed by Willie Nelson, who's been lobbying for Farm Aid for years. :)

Oh and by the way, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[IrateCitizen]

168. Here's the problem in that logic

The person making $20k and paying a tax of $2k needs a helluva lot more of their money (probably the full $20k and then some) just to pay for NECESSITIES. Meanwhile, the person bringing in $1 million a year and paying $100k is certainly not dependent upon a large portion of even his after-tax income for necessities.

Taxing the wealthy to give to the less wealthy, has not worked very well for the past 50 years. "Give" is the key word, as gifts are often squandered.

This statement is patently false. The greatest period of true economic growth in this country was the post WWII period -- the same time in which the tax rates on uppermost income brackets were highest and distribution of wealth was perhaps the most egalitarian.

IOW, peddle your snake oil somewhere else. I'm not buying it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

198. Easy to fix

I am a flat tax proponent, but advocate a nice floor first of, let's say $30,000. The first $30,000 for all taxpayers would be untaxed.

That encourages us all to keep working and earning while skewing the burden to those who earn a lot AND keeping the same fair tax system for everyone.

Let's take a sample using 20% taxes (in reality I think it would be higher, but it makes math simple.)

Person A earns $30,000 -- No taxes. Tax percentage 0%.
Person B earns $50,000 -- $4,000 in taxes. Tax percentage 8%.
Person C earns $100,000 -- $14,000 in taxes. Tax percentage 14%.
Person D earns $200,000 -- $34,000 in taxes. Tax percentage 17%.

[redqueen]

217. A flat tax is by definition unfair

It places a larger burden on people who earn less money.

I'm really shocked to see a Democrat advocating it. :wow:

[Muddleoftheroad]

241. Did you read my post

My version of a flat tax is quite progressive. You put a floor in and the low-earners pay no tax at all. It just simplifies the process and makes sure all pay under the same fair system.

[redqueen]

256. From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

I'm not going to bother trying to debate you any longer. Rather I've chosen a source I and many others respect. Perhaps you'll be more willing to take the statement into consideration, since it's coming from someone other than another poster. This is from 1998.

"7. The Tax Foundation numbers frequently are used by those who argue the federal income tax code should be replaced with a flat tax or consumption tax on the grounds that income tax burdens on middle-class families have exploded and reached crushing levels. In fact, the typical family would likely pay higher taxes under the proposed alternatives to the income tax.

Congressional Budget Office analyses show that even before the federal income tax cuts enacted last summer, about three of every four families were paying less than 10 percent of their incomes in federal individual income taxes. Nevertheless, the Tax Foundation figures often are used to create an impression that federal income tax burdens on middle-class families have risen sharply and reached crushing levels. These misimpressions are fanned by some who favor replacing the income tax with a flat tax or national sales tax and who portray such a change as benefitting hard-pressed, over-taxed, middle-income families.

Since affluent Americans pay a much higher percentage of income in federal income taxes than other families do under our current, graduated income tax structure — a reality the Tax Foundation's figures obscure — virtually all proposals to shift to a flat or national sales tax would result in windfalls for those at the top of the income spectrum and require either increased taxes on middle- and low-income families or substantially reduced revenue collections. Reductions in revenue could usher in a new era of budget deficits or lead to large reductions in programs upon which the middle class relies."

(italicized emphasis is mine, this is the portion relevant to this discussion)

[muriel_volestrangler]

246. it always depends on the rate and starting point

it's always possible to construct a flat tax where those paying the current highest tax rate pay exactly the same tax as now, and everyone else pays less than now (though that would of course mean a far smaller total amount of tax received); but realistically, you may well be able to set the amounts so that people who earn more than a certain amount (it might be, say, $150,000, but you need the details of how much tax is received from each segment of income to work it out) pay more than now, and those who earn less pay less. For this, the rate has to be higher than the current top marginal rate. Unfortunately, when people see this rate, even those who'd end up paying less get cold feet about implementing it.

[Kanary]

19. I Can't Speak to This In Theoretical Terms

I'm *living* with this on a daily basis. No, not to the degree that people in Third World countries do, but nevertheless, it is still an impossible situation.

One of the things that left-brain discussions of this matter leave out is the SHAME that is part of the diatribe used against us. Historically, I don't think there was so much isolation in being poor as there is now. Poor folx were much more numerous, lived next to and with each other, and were there for each other in the day-to-day struggles. For the most part, that isn't so true anymore. We are isolated and picked off: to the point of attacking each other with the same propaganda.

Intellectual discussions are fine, but wouldn't it also be advantageous to actually discuss this with the few of us here who are living this? I have tried to bring up some of the issues, but with few exceptions have been met with silence. That certainly isn't helping the sense of isolation.

:hi: Can anyone see this?

Kanary

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Hear, hear!

Right now I'm working two jobs as a cook to make ends meet. It sucks, and I doubt any change in the tax codes is going to make my life any easier. What we need is a living wage. And I don't buy that crap about having to raise the price of goods to support a living wage. The buying cache of those who now can afford the goods on the market after such a wage increase would quicky re-fill the pockets of the already-rich producers of said goods.

I wish I heard one of the front-runners (cough, cough, Dean) talking about this.

[redqueen]

93. Very good point

"And I don't buy that crap about having to raise the price of goods to support a living wage."

Absolute garbage. This might be somewhat true for small businesses, but those aren't the ones by and large abusing people (*coughWalMartcough*). THOSE corporations can fund a living wage, or whatever other benefits by cutting down on the inexcusable overcompensation of top tier empoyees.

[evil_orange_cat]

20. these things are cyclic... read "The People's History of the US" by Zinn

everytime the pendulum swings right and the rich robber barrons become powerful, there is a massive progressive movement that equalizes things... and society gets better. For as bad as things get, things always get 10x better when the pendulum swings back.

In the 20th Century, things got bad and bad, then we got Teddy Roosevelt... one of the best American presidents ever. Then, things were good for a while... but then the rich got more powerful until the Depression hit. We had tough times, then we got FDR, probably the best President ever. Not only did we win WW2 and become the most powerful country on the planet, we had one of the most prosperous and egaltarian economic periods in history during the 50's and early 60's. Sure there were other problems, like civil rights, Red scare, etc... but economically, things were quite good for the average American. Then, we had Vietnam and a worsening economic trend of concentration of wealth, culminating in Reagan's assault on 99% of America. But things got better. Clinton became president, and although wealth continued to be concentrated at the top, there was economic growth at all levels of income. We had historically low unemployment and a technological boom. But then, we get Bush... historically high job cuts, massive GDP gains in the most recent quarter... while unit wages decreasing. Productivity is high because companies are further squeezing as much out of workers as possible while rich corporate execs reap the rewards.

But don't feel bad and let these evil people depress you. As far "right" as things get... the progressive movement only gets stronger as people begin to realize that their corporate masters are robbing them blind.

[Kanary]

23. That's all very nice, but it doesn't help when YOU'RE the one who's fallin

falling off the cliff.

Of course it "FEELS BAD" and "DEPRESSES"

How many suicides will it take to make that point?

Kanary

[evil_orange_cat]

26. oh yeah, I'm rolling in the dough ::rolleyes::

but if anyone lets the Bush admin drive them to suicide, they have bigger problems than who the president is.

And I know... I have severe clinincal depression as well as a few overdoses under my belt. But I won't give any credit to Bush for my depression. Clinton was prez when I first had problems. :D

And yes, knowing that this is a cyclical and temporary period in history DOES HELP. Because it gives hope that things will improve. And if an eternal pessimist like me can see this, there is no reason why anyone can't.

[camero]

28. We just don't have 50 years to wait for it

It has gotten too far out of hand.

[Kanary]

29. Geeeeez...

Do you really NOT know what I'm talking about??

This is NOT a "Mental" issue, and it really is irritating to see anyone here lay it on the victims in that way. This is *precisely* what I meant by dividing and isolating the ones affected.

Surely you remember that there are cuts taking place? Surely you understand that some are being cut from necesssary medical treatments, from housing, from any source of support??? Surely you can understand that for some, suicide is preferable to dying more slowly on the streets? And for some, the dying won't be all that slow? Some are being cut from medication that is literally all that is keeping them alive. Hardly a "Mental" problem!

It's "cyclical and temporary" to those who have the $$$ to weather it. For those with no reserves, who are cut from their very means of survival, there is nothing "temporary" about it.

Kanary

[evil_orange_cat]

30. then people should act...

I'm a firm believe in "people have the government they deserve". Ignorance and Apathy reign supreme during these times. Yes, there are people at the mercy of these corporate robber barrons... but with so many millions being affected, people have only themselves to blame if their "democracy" keeps voting in these corporate puppets.

And you are wrong. It is cyclical and temporary to EVERYBODY. You just have to keep hope and weather the storm. Suicide is a cop-out... giving up... and don't lecture me about depression or suicide because I've dealt with it my entire life. And I've had family members take the "easy" road and end it.

I don't know why you are trying to destroy my message of hope to people. What we need IS hope... not just more ignorance and apathy.

[prolesunited]

32. I think you've personalized the issue so much

that you're missing his point. From what I understood, he was simply pointing out the historical cycles as it pertains to social and economic justice and I thought it was a valid contribution to this discussion.

Of course that does not diminish what you and hundreds of other people are going through right now. I spent a number of years living below the poverty line myself, so this isn't just an intellectual exercise for me either.

We DO see the pain and suffering these policies are causing. Why do you think the issue was raised and people are bothering to post in this thread?

I'm truly sorry things are so hard for you right now, but we do care and working together and hammering out solutions is one way we can help make things better. Unfortunately, short of a revolution, there isn't a quick fix.

[Kanary]

37. pardon me, I'll just die quietly

[prolesunited]

38. How did you read my post

and come up with this as a response?

Tell me, what can we do right this minute to fix things and turn it all around?

You act like I don't know what you're talking about but I do, all to well. My brother had problems with mental illness for all of his life and was turned away when he sought treatment because he fell in that no man's land of being neither poor enough or rich enough. Instead, he turned to alcohol, which spiraled into drug abuse. Somewhere in between he lucked out and found a job with insurance.

He decides to finally get treatment for his drug abuse. Unfortunately, the insurance company rules it a pre-existing condition and denies his claim. He's left with a $25,000 bill for rehab that he can't pay. Discouraged and denied treatment because of his outstanding bills, he ends up back on drugs, files for bankruptcy. You know how it finally ended? He hung himself from the rafters in my parent's basement.

So, don't act like I don't understand. I'm not even going to get into what I've been through in my own life. Why do you think I'm fighting so fucking hard?!?!

[Kanary]

42. Talk about assumptions!

Why are you laying all this alcoholism and druggie stuff on me???

That's what really burns my britches... really good.

You think I don't already get enough of that from the Party Of Cain?

I will *NOT* defend myself to you when you make assumptions like that, and those of the other poster. Back off and just listen for a change. I've already this week had to put up with that kind of assumption crap from drs, and I don't need more of it here. You want to come search my place, and find no alcohol, and certainly no drugs here? geeeez.

This is why I have become so discouraged... when the supposed most liberal group can't even hear, or take the time to pay attention to the rare threads that address this issue at all, then it is truly hopeless.

I can tell you definitely that it hurts a lot more here than it does from the blessed Reich wing.

Kanary

[prolesunited]

46. I wasn't making any assumptions at all

I was sharing a personal story about why these issues are important to me. Apparently we just keep talking past each other.

Peace.

[Kanary]

48. apparently so

Given the nature of D.U., and that I've seen some posts from you in other places that were a bit...heated... and the other poster was after me about being mentally ill *ggggeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!*, I couldn't see that you were replying to me at all except to assume what my "problem" is.

From what I've seen, alcoholics get more resources and sympathy than people with disabilities, and that doesn't help me too much. They deserve help, too, but DANG.... I didn't do *ANYTHING* to deserve what I'm living with. I didn't cause this in any way.

As I said in my original post, I cannot talk about this in theoretical terms. I would think this would be the one place I could share my own story, but... to be told "Don't take it personally" hurts. In the words of Meg Ryan in "You've got Mail", "Of course it's personal!"

I can't even begin to tell you just how much it hurts to be ignored, talked over and talked at on the one place I would think I could find sympathetic souls. It's one thing from the Reich wing, it's another from people I used to trust.

Kanary

[redqueen]

175. Kanary,

I just want to say that whatever your situation is, that you'll be in my prayers. I know of people who are 'falling through the cracks' in just the way you seem to be describing, and it's heartbreaking to see it go unnoticed by most.

Last night I saw a man barely able to walk, putting groceries in his truck in a half-stand from his wheelchair, and I watched as no less than 6 people walked right by him. I went and asked if he'd like some help, and he declined (which wasn't really surprising, since he didn't even park in the handicapped area). It struck me reading your posts that there are probably so many like him, but even less visible due to their circumstances, and due to the cuts in social services, their misery will only grow.

When Bush spoke of reaching out to our neighbors, I think it's this kind of thing he was talking about. We may not know what someone's trouble is, but it doesn't hurt to ask and try to help. God knows it hurts to assume. I may dislike the man intensely, and even loathe the things he's done, but by God the meaning behind that one statement, if acted on and FUNDED by PUBLIC SERVANTS, could redeem him in my eyes. Alas, I'm nearly 100% positive it was all rhetoric, but my better nature serves to caution me that he may just mean it, even if he doesn't understand that it can't ever work the way he may expect it to in the society we have right now. My darker side thinks it's a ruse, but that doesn't help to consider.

Anyway... ranting aside... I hope that whatever your circumstances are, that you're lucky enough to cross paths with someone who will offer a hand or even a sympathetic ear.

Bless you and good luck.

[Shyriath]

24. My two cents...

• The five heirs of WalMart stand to inherit $19 billion apiece tax-free while full-time employees make $8 an hour.

Or less, in the case of someone I know (who is typing this message as I... or he... types. Or something. Talking of oneself in the third person is damn confusing).

The author asserts, "Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?

Agree. The fact of the matter is, when a small minority of the population gets all the good stuff while the rest do without, the rest get mad. We, as humans, have an instinct for sensing unfairness, and the sharper the unfairness, the madder we get. And when the people have had enough of doing without the privileges attained by the minority, they will feel moved to take some for themselves (though I hope this never has to happen).

One can argue back and forth about whether the desire for equal distribution is a good thing or not. I've seen websites that label it as nothing more as discrimination against, and hatred for, success, and an desire to take away rightfully earned wealth; but even if this is so, it does not change the fact that it is there, and must be accounted for. People at an economic disadvantage are unhappy people, by and large. When they become a majority of the population, you're just bound to have problems.

On the more rational side, I personally feel that you can't have a civilization without compromises, or without a way to dsitribute resources as needed, so that a small group of people hoarding money to themselves, even if they earned it, cannot be permitted, or else that civilization will be deprived of a vital source of cash, which could go toward improving life for all instead of a few.

Pervading American society is the belief that we make our own fate and everyone starts our with an equal opportunity. True or false?

Are you asking whether or not the idea pervades society, or whether or not the actual idea is true? It wouldn't surprise me if people believed it was true, but in the case of the idea itself: Bull. Not merely bull, but bull of a particularly pure and unrefined sort. I extend this to all facets of life, not merely economic inquality; there are always things that can happen to a person that are beyond their control, no matter how much free will they have or how much effort they put into it. In this particular case, someone who brings in a low income, or none at all, can find quite a few factors stacked against them. For example, a lack of jobs in general would make it hard to advance oneself, since more positions (especially higher-paying onces) would be hotly competed for; there might also be more directly personal factors, such as biases, that would impede advancement. Depending on race and gender, one may find it harder to get certain jobs (I imagine that gays and bisexuals and the like are also discriminated against to an extent in the job market?), and indeed, one can imagine that your own economic station can work against you... if you want a decent job, you want to look good for the interview, but suppose you can't afford decent clothes and it leaves the interviewer with a negative impression?

Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?

Taxing the rich more heavily than the poor... which, in my view, is not punishing the rich, especially if the taxation is still light enough as to still leave them richer than most people. But the money isn't just going to trickle down by itself, at least not in the amounts needed (after all, if it DID do that, would we have this problem in the first place?); it must be moved, by an active force, away from where it's concentrated (the rich) to where it's not, and where it's needed most (the poor). This active force almost certainly must either be the government (drawing it in through taxation, then allocating it to agencies devoted to providing food, shelter, health care, etc.) or the rich themselves, voluntarily (who could do it through heavy giving to charities, but cannot be guaranteed to do it).

If we allow economic inequality because we believe in social equality — the basic fairness of the race — is it not the government's responsibility to make sure the race actually IS fair?

I believe that economic inquality should not be so much allowed as tolerated, and for two reasons... one, the amount of planning involved in bringing everyone to the exact same notch on the economic scale would be so dauntingly complex that the effort is uneconomical, when a less stringent goal would require far less; two, people should have SOME form of reward for hard work: the more work involved in their job, the more money they should get. They just shouldn't get so much more that it's out of proportion to a reasonable average.

But, getting back on the track of the question, I would imagine that there's no one else who could ensure fairness, and be more trusted to do it... although, given the close connections of many government functionaries to diverse economic interests, even this is not ideal. It would be better if government officials, upon taking office, be required to divest themselves of all ties to economic interests that they might be able to affect through their jobs, and remain disconnected from them for the rest of their lives. So, for example, if a retired corporate exec, who gets some form of retirement pay, wishes to run for office, he/she must give up that pay forever if he/she wins.

I what ways is the race to the top not fair? What role, if any, should government play? Eh, more or less included in the stuff I ranted about above. Time to shut my mouth.

[camero]

25. There are some good ideas here

www.prout.org

Some of them will seem weird, but the guy who thought it up was a Buddist, but there are some very good ideas here.

I should add that there should be an ethics test for all candidates running for office.

[ibegurpard]

27. Everyone starts with an equal opportunity?!

Tell that to kids growing up in poor families who barely have enough money to put food on the table let alone send their kids to college! It really, really irks me when I hear some pampered yuppie yammer on about how they've worked their way up to where they are. Yes, it does take a lot of work but they have a HUGE step up when they come from middle to upper-class families who can afford to give them huge advantages.

[sendero]

33. or...

... as I believe it was Jim Hightower said (about Bush I ?) "he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" :)

[prolesunited]

34. One of the points made later

in the article is that the goverrnment, indeed, can play a role in giving everyone an equal opportunity at the starting line.

It can begin with such basics as:
Adequate prenatal and child health care
Safe living conditions
Ensuring children have enough to eat
Providing well-structured daycare
Enhancing public education

And these are just the fundamentals. Until all of our children are provided with these necessary tools and support, we certainly cannot say that people start with an equal opportunity.

Think how much harder someone has to work to rise out of poverty in gang-infested public housing to succeed in life than those who grew up wealthy in fashionable community.

[IrateCitizen]

55. But perhaps the nature of the race is more important...

... than the starting line???

It's the same old failure of liberalism rearing its head again. While it's not bad in and of itself to advocate a system in which everybody has an equal chance at the starting line, the problem lies within the race itself. People are taught to believe that the best system is one in which the principle of "rugged individualism" rules, and the overriding goal is making a profit and striking it rich.

These values cannot be separated from society as a whole -- instead, they come to dominate it. That is why aspects of our society built around caring -- health care workers, child care workers, teachers -- are not looked at with the same respect as those who "create wealth". The person who can hit a home run, throw a pass or dunk a basketball is elevated to hero status -- while the talented teacher who toils day after day in an inner-city public school, making a real difference in children's lives, is relatively ignored. The end result is a society in which caring is less valued, and selfishness reigns supreme.

The overall goal should not be to simply provide an "equal starting line". So long as the values behind the game as a whole remain twisted, people will try and exploit advantage wherever they can. The only way to get past this is to instead create a culture in which caring is valued at least as much as wealth creation -- if not more. Check out some of the writings of Rabbi Michael Lerner (http://www.tikkun.org) or his book The Politics of Meaning for some expansion of this discussion.

[pmbryant]

61. I believe caring *is* valued highly in our culture

That is why aspects of our society built around caring -- health care workers, child care workers, teachers -- are not looked at with the same respect as those who "create wealth".

Here's an illustrative poll I saw via Calpundit earlier this week: http://www.pollingreport.com/values.htm

Looking at this poll (which for some weird reason does not seem to include school teachers as a category), people don't seem to hold people in classic 'wealth-generating' positions in high regard at all. Health care workers and 'college teachers' (and presumably elementary school teachers as well, though to what degree I cannot say) score very highly.

I don't think the problem is cultural or societal, at least in a broad sense. (Looking into the sub-culture of business executives is a different matter!) There will always be people looking to exploit the system for every advantage they can get, and trying to keep others down in order to elevate themselves. The problem now is that these people have so much wealth and political power that the counterweight to this behavior is increasingly ineffective, and they proceed to get bolder and bolder in their selfish actions.

:-(

--Peter

[IrateCitizen]

68. The poll may bode true for what many people wish for...

... but I don't think it necessarily holds true for the society in which we live. Allow me to try to explain.

I happen to live in one of the most affluent areas in the US (although I'm far from wealthy in a financial sense myself) -- Westchester County, NY. The Clintons literally live the next town over from me. A few of the Waltons (as in Wal Mart Waltons) live a town over as well.

While people may, deep down inside, long for a society that values caring -- when it comes to a choice between building that caring-based society or pursuing material wealth, most choose to pursue material wealth. It's quite evident when I walk through my town or travel on the roads of the area.

Now, you can hardly blame all of this on the people themselves. Working in midtown Manhattan, I see every day how inundated we are with commercialism and materialism. It is, quite literally, EVERYWHERE we turn. But you do have to place some of the blame on them for buying into this crass commericialism as the key to their happiness. Being a person who has come to reject it in many ways, I can testify as to how difficult our society makes it for someone who looks to live by those values on a daily basis -- down to choices as simple as what clothes and food to buy.

[pmbryant]

72. Despite commercialism, the right attitudes are there

Commercialism is indeed everywhere, but despite all that, people really do respect people is caring positions far more than they do people in classic money-making positions.

So I don't think it is a pre-requisite to eliminate or even reduce commercialism/materialism in order to try to create a more equitable distribution of wealth. (And that's a good thing, because trying to reduce commercialism would be a gargantuan task, I think.)

The right attitudes are there. The foundation of the solution is present. The problem is building upon that foundation and turning those attitudes into political power.

--Peter

[IrateCitizen]

75. I'll disagree once more (but not in the way you imagine)

The right attitudes are there. The foundation of the solution is present. The problem is building upon that foundation and turning those attitudes into political power.

The problem is building upon that foundation not to achieve political power, but to transform society as we know it. Political power is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

But the idea of transforming society, as important as it is, is a much more daunting task than achieving any kind of political power. Political power, by its very nature, is short-term and transitory. What I am talking about here is a much more permanent systemic shift.

I'd recommend Michael Lerner's book The Politics of Meaning as an excellent summary of the task that lies before us, along with some broad recommendations of how we can work toward our common goal. Affluenza by DeGraff, et.al. is another excellent work, but it deals more in short-term, individual strategies. Both are important.

[pmbryant]

91. Political power is a means to an 'end'

And the 'end' is restraining the selfish activities of the super-wealthy to prevent them from grabbing up the lion's share of the countries wealth.

Yes, political power is transitory, but so is everything. It just means that once the goal is reached, the fight to maintain it will continue. But since it is transitory, it is something that can actually be achieved soon, and thus help out millions upon millions of people with their real lives in the foreseeable future.

You seem to be saying that we have little hope of changing the balance of political power until we do the far more daunting and time-consuming task of 'transforming society'. I don't know how to reconcile that concept with the idea (that you also stated and that I share) that political power is transitory. This appears a contradiction to me.

I am not familiar with these books you mention. But perhaps I will take a look at them just to see what they have to say.

--Peter

[IrateCitizen]

147. Perhaps we just view history through different lenses

Personally, I don't put too much faith in the ability of the system to change things -- mainly because the entire role of the system is to enforce the status quo. It always has been.

Change in our society, whether it was the abolitionists, the labor movement, the fight for women's suffrage or civil rights -- has always started at the fringes, and then moved on to change society as a whole. It has only been recognized by the political process after it has changed society to the point that it can no longer be ignored.

At least that's the way that I see it -- much in line with the outlook of Howard Zinn in A People's History of the United States.

[pmbryant]

172. Perhaps

The way I see it: With women's suffrage and civil rights, political victories were required before society could fully change. The societal change to accept women and minorities as full members is still not complete, but the political victories were instrumental, and absolutley necessary I think, in driving the process forward.

So I don't really understand what you mean when you say "It has only been recognized by the political process after it has changed society to the point that it can no longer be ignored."

(The labor movement, I am less familiar with the detailed history of, so I won't speak to that.)

--Peter

[redqueen]

182. Grassroots efforts precede political victory

In all cases, abolition, women's suffrage, populist movements, child labor laws, workers' rights, etc... the grassroots effort to transform society preceded any political victories by years, if not decades.

In the case of the women's movement, it was five decades. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were both deceased by the time their great efforts came to fruition.

Nothing ever changes substantially from leaders. On the contrary, they must be forced to follow US. And in some cases, so does the majority of the society (e.g. abolition, civil rights, etc.)

[pmbryant]

187. Of course!

Grassroots efforts are not 'transforming society' though. Grassroots efforts are exactly what we need to start the political shift in this case.

We certainly can't wait around and assume Dean or Clark or Lieberman or Gephardt or whoever will automatically fix everything once inaugurated in January 2005. Even if they sincerely attempt to do so, powerful forces will attempt to stop them in any way possible.

Of course, first we need a grassroots effort to ensure that one of these guys (or one of the others Dems) is actually inaugurated then. ;-)

--Peter

[IrateCitizen]

193. They most certainly are transforming society.

The reason that the civil rights movement was successful was that it awakened so many people who weren't directly affected by the policies of segregation in the South -- but fought for it anyway. That, my friend, is a transformation of society.

Likewise with the labor movement, fighting and bleeding in order to awaken workers to the idea that, if they stand together, they can stand against the industrialists and holders of capital on equal terms. Compared to the gilded age, that was a transformation of society.

Same thing with the abolitionists. The reason that they ultimately succeeded was because they made so many people realize the wrong of slavery. That was a transformation of society, as compared to the US of the late 18th century, in which slavery was looked at as completely acceptable.

You need to look at these events in the broader context. We're not talking about struggles of four or five years, or even ten. We're talking about struggles that went on for 60, 70, even 80 years before they were seen to come to a fruition. But it is through that struggle that society is transformed.

Like I said, it's neither pretty nor easy.

[pmbryant]

205. You are absolutely correct on that

I spoke very poorly in my previous post.

I should have stuck to my original point that political change (and the grassroots efforts to affect that political change) can occur on a shorter timescale than societal change. From the history of these other efforts, I don't see that we have to wait for the latter in order to affect the former.

--Peter

[yagotme]

131. Heroes

I'll sure agree with you, Irate, on the hero question. If we brought these peple out, those that did their jobs to the best of their ability, those that have to do with the few resources they have, and still provide quality service, these are the ones who should be annointed as heroes. Not the guy who hits so many home runs a year, therefore his market value goes up. Don't get me wrong, here, some of those sports individuals really work at their areas of expertise, but I feel some of the attention should be directed toward local, hometown-type folk who have made it their life's work to help others, often at below-scale wages. There are more of them than the other, you only just hear about the other.

[redqueen]

178. Our local news station features just such people

Calling them 'Hometown Heroes'. I agree we should do more to raise appreciation for this kind of lifestyle. Unfortunately, as evidenced by this thread, the lifestyle that's rewarded, and that's therefore perceived as valueable, is the one that espouses materialism and greed.

I haven't agreed with many of your posts, but on this we're eye-to-eye! :)

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[yagotme]

299. I'm glad

to hear that they are recognized. Now if the national media would pick up on stuff like this, instead of how much so-and-so made, murders here and there,we'd be better off emotionally. We, as a population, need to hear the good things as well as the bad, and a continual input of bad news can lead to depression, a loss of desire to produce, or worse. It is refreshing to hear about how someone helped out someone else, and this should lead others to aspire to do the same. Look at all the "copycat" crimes. Someone wants recognition, can't get it through normal channels, and sees an opportunity to cash in on their 15 minutes. Sad, very sad.

[sendero]

31. this...

... is the most basic reason I'm a Democrat. Economic justice, like judicial justice, is absolutely essential to a healthy society.

The wealth-gap that is building up in our society is a cancer that will destroy it if not checked. History shows that our kind of economy cannot survive with such concentrations of wealth, and common sense tells you that the repercussions in longer term will be severe.

As usual, the Repubs charge "class warfare" when in fact they are the ones perpetrating it. I haven't really heard any of the candidates speak to this issue, I hope they do.

[pmbryant]

35. Economic justice

For me too, that has become one of the essential defining characteristics of my political beliefs.

I am not necessarily looking for the candidates to speak on this issue, though I certainly would enjoy it if they did. They are all running as Democrats, and most have proven records as Democrats, so I trust that they are all on our side on this issue.

What I will be looking and pushing for instead is real action, once the winner is in power.

:-)

--Peter

[JanMichael]

39. OK.

"• Current ratio of CEO to worker pay is 500 to 1."

I thought it was 750 to 1?

"The author asserts, "Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?"

I agree completely. Why? Let's see...When there are homeless children, abandoned Veterans with psychiatric problems, Tens of millions without Heathcare, people losing their homes, losing their Benefits, and a host of other real problems for millions of Americans, WHILE at the same time those lucky sperm from Sammy are living like kings, social cohesion will be degraded, people will get angry, angry people with little to lose are not for of Heirs to fortunes.

"Pervading American society is the belief that we make our own fate and everyone starts our with an equal opportunity. True or false?"

True. But it's a bald faced lie.

"Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?"

Yes. But not in with our corrupted electoral system. Can't happen.

"If we allow economic inequality because we believe in social equality — the basic fairness of the race — is it not the government's responsibility to make sure the race actually IS fair?"

Heh. It already protects and promotes the well being of Capital, why not some even protection for the Humans?

"I what ways is the race to the top not fair? What role, if any, should government play?"

The real problem is Capitalism's natural, perhaps unavoidable, race to the bottom regarding Labor.

"Lots to digest here. I would love to have the input of many DUers on this one — from the stalwart capitalists to the idealistic socialists."

I'm not an Idealistic Socialist...I'm a determined one.

[prolesunited]

53. The pay ratio

was lifted from the article. I didn't independently verify. Can you find a citation for your figure, not that I wouldn't doubt it, but I wouldn't want to toss it out there if it wasn't factual.

Thank you for your perspective. I was just tossing an adjective out there. Idealism is good IMHO.

Thanks for your thorough response. I think we're had some really excellent answers here, proof that there's more to GD than flamewars and candidate bashing.

[dawgman]

109. JanMichael, as usual I'm right with you on this

Of course, the growing disparity between the haves and the have nots is not only morally repellent but a symptom of a morally and soon to be actually banrupt society.

Some day people will figure it out...until then, Vive la revolution.

[quaker bill]

44. Social Darwinism vs levelling

There are problems with both concepts because they both fail to relate to human nature.

Social darwinism suggests that the highest good is achieved when people are allowed to succeed or fail to the greatest possible extent unhindered by any moderating influence.

To the extent that the idea has any validity, the current social structure fails to implement it. GW Bush is a fine example. Were he truly allowed to freely find his level unmoderated by any external influence he would probably have ended up in the marketing or service sector. However, inherited wealth and prestige have placed him in a position for which he is naturally unqualified.

Levelling on the other hand suggests equal outcomes for labor regardless of skill level.

This approach has never been tried here at any significant scale. To the extent tried it generally fails, because it fails to speak to the competitive nature of people and fails to provide adequate incentive for hard work.

A better approach is one that recognizes, however modestly, varying gifts and level of effort, while at the same time moderates the accumulation of inherited wealth, and reduces the extent of capital accumulation inherent in a capitalist system.

[bread_and_roses]

47. I wish everyone would read this thread

and I wish they would notice that at least several remarked on the absence of this topic from the Dem campaign.

Others have said better most of what I would have said, but two points I think have not yet been brought up: one, we have to recognize the demonization of the poor that has been going on for at least the past twenty years. This has distorted the debate, and most of us have internalized at least some of it. Partially as a result of that demonization, working people have forgotten that income supports for the very poor provide at least a floor for wages, and therefore work to the advantage of working people as well as providing a safety net.

The other aspect to keep in mind is the degree to which this income inequality functions both to perpetuate and then to justify racism.

[RainDog]

50. some thoughts

CEOs often have family members on the boards of corps who are the ones voting for the pay packages.

there could be rules which state that every corp. board must have a member, voted on by his/her peers, who is in the lowest salary class for that corp, as well as representation from other levels of a company.

getting health care out of the hands of corps makes sense on an entrepreneurial level, as well as a basic human rights issue. if a person is not a slave to a company in order to have health insurance, more would be free to pursue their own bizzes or things like development of alternative energy, etc. etc.

stop the corporate welfare. make it illegal for corps to have offshore accts.

food should not be taxed. all income up to a certain (higher) level should not be taxed. luxury items should have additional taxes.

in other words, a loaf of bread is a loaf of bread no matter what you make, but a yacht is not a necessity, or at least it isn't to most people.

Raise the minimum wage so that a person can actually afford housing and food based upon the expenses of those items in the area of the country where that person lives.

It is ridiculous to think that all start out with equal opportunities, or all ever have equal opportunities in this nation. Nor will that ever happen.

However, it is possible to recognize this fact and to attempt to help those in difficult circumstances to overcome the things which cause them to immediately be born with more obstacles.

Poverty is one of the most difficult and stressful things any person can face in this nation. The wealthiest must develop a sense of "commonwealth" as Bill Gates Sr. calls it...the idea that we are individuals, yet part of a greater whole which includes our disadvantaged members of society. The idea of commonwealth, or a community richness based upon our connected to each other, is the frame of mind which unites a nation. The idea of greed without end, amen is what tears a nation apart, and, yes, when there are huge disparities in wealth...not so much the differences between, but the horridness of the circumstances for the poorest members of society...this causes entire populations, and adults of our future, to feel disenfranchised from their nation.

No one wants to take away all the rich people's goodies. Rather, I think the majority would agree that if living in this nation has given you many wonderful things...as in Bill Gates jr's sitch...it is only common sense that you would give something back to this nation...and what is this nation other than its citizens?

Other western democracies have shown that it is possible to have both a social safety net and humane health care policies and ALSO capitalism that allows people the freedom to consume or whatever.

It is impossible, and also unconstitutional, imo, to expect people to deal with other people's issues of poverty, etc. through institutions like churches... or private organizations. There are simply too many people for this to work, and no one should be forced to attend a church, etc. in order to eat or go to school in a safe environment.

just some of my opinions, but I have never seen how republican policies ever deal with those who suffer the most from economic darwinism, social darwinism, or just plain hard luck.

[moondust]

51. The race will never be fair

as long as some people are born into millions or billions and others are born into poverty. As Molly Ivins aptly put it: "George Bush was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." To truly level the playing field one would have to do away with inheritance so that everybody starts out with, say, $50 at their disposal.

Economic inequality is bad for both democracy and capitalism. Democracy because of the social cohesion/stratification thing as well as the unequal influence some groups (wealthy) have on the process. They use their inequality to serve themselves thus creating more inequality. Bad for consumer capitalism because concentration of wealth shrinks the customer base for everything. The wider the wealth is spread, the more widget customers there are, the more demand for widgets, the more workers required to make them, the more jobs, the more paychecks, the more widget customers there are...

Perhaps more wealthy folk and their puppets in the gov't need to understand that those who have more will always be taxed more out of necessity in order to provide for the common weal. If they don't like it then simply don't bother to get rich.

[JanMichael]

52. We should jettison the word "Fair" and use Equitable.

While essentially meaning the same thing I think that some people automatically shut down when they hear the word Fair. IMO that's not the same as Equitable.

Oh and good post:-)

[undergroundpanther]

54. This site gets right to the core

Check this site out

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/

read the myth of wealth
and defeat a conservative in 3 minutes.

[dawgman]

113. good point how many times did you hear "life isn't fair" growing up?

I can't count.

[highlonesome]

95. did you know?

80% of the millionaires in America are first generation -- self made.

So if someone is able to create their own wealth like that, why shouldn't they have the right to pass that on to their family?

[camero]

96. Noone is "self made".

Nobody can do all the work by themselves. You have to hire and employ people to make money. Except in cases of inheritance or the lottery.

Think differently? Try having a business where you are the only worker and see if you make a million bucks. If you have employees, then you are indebted to them for helping you make that million.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Not only that, but by benefitting from our legal system...

... and the infrastructure that was already in place that allowed them to launch a business. All of those things cost money.

Nobody is "self-made". Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

[highlonesome]

108. no s**t

I don't normally respond with expletives, but come on. Of course you have to do all that. I'm merely trying to indicate that it isn't as much of a lock out as is being portrayed by many here.

Those people are self made in that:

-they had an inherent aptitude
-they cultivated that aptitude
-they conceived and developed an idea to fit an economic niche
-they assumed all the risk involved in their venture
-they organized and motivated their employees

[IrateCitizen]

116. Right. THEY did all of this. Not their children.

So, by that measurement, what rights do their children have to that wealth, other than having won the birth canal lottery?

[highlonesome]

123. are you serious?

The right to care for and economically enable one's family is one of the most basic rights there is -- predating government by only a few million years.

Not to mention it's a big part of what is meant by the "pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution.

Do you consider yourself socialist or communist?

[IrateCitizen]

130. Ahhh... the labels come out -- a strawman response.

What I consider myself is of no consequence. It is, however, a strawman. IOW, it's obvious that you're getting desperate.

You have failed to answer the question as to what that person's children have done to deserve that financial wealth, outside of winning the birth canal lottery. As soon as you do answer that question adequately, then we can discuss what I "consider" myself to be.

[highlonesome]

134. don't usually do that

But what you're suggesting, that a person's children have no right to said wealth, is a communist idea -- isn't it?

I don't know if you have a family or not, but to me, the conept of family is just as basic in terms of rights as the concept of the individual. My wealth is not mine alone, it is shared with my family. In a way I kind of see it as asking what right does my daughter have to anything more than the basics to survive? She didn't actually earn anything that Santa's about to bring her, but she's getting it anyway.

I guess I get the impression that what you're implying is that society collectively has a greater right to my wealth than my family does.

[IrateCitizen]

138. Not at all what I am suggesting

What I was suggesting was that those children of a wealthy person did nothing to EARN that wealth.

The idea of taking care of one's family is an age-old one. But there is a distinct difference between allowing parents to pass down a certain amount of financial wealth to their children, as opposed to allowing them to pass down any amount of money, tax-free.

It continually amazes me how so many people on this board allow their debate to be dictated in the terms of the right wing. The Estate Tax is not about the government seizing all of the wealth that a person tries to pass down to their children. It is about the government reasonably TAXING a portion of that wealth, after a certain threshold. And the last time I checked, that threshold was pretty generous -- over a million dollars!

So, the question them becomes, is what is best for the individual always best for society as a whole? Personally, I feel that the unfettered inheritance of wealth from generation to generation does much more to infringe on the basic freedoms and dignities of those who are not fortunate enough to be born into wealth, than keeping a reasonable tax on estates over a certain threshold does to infringe on the freedoms of those "unfortunate" enough to be affected by it.

Here's some FACTS on the estate tax, thanks to United for a Fair Economy, to help set the record straight.
http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html

ON EDIT: I would not consider myself a communist. If I had to attach a label to my philosophy (which I am loathe to do), it would be anarcho-socialism. In effect, I believe in free markets -- but only on a scale at which they can be directly managed by citizens -- and believe that the economy should work first and foremost for social needs, as opposed to serving the desires of capital. I am also a fierce believer in the freedoms of speech, press, religion, privacy, and so on. I guess I'm a proponent of democracy first and foremost -- and an opponent of anything that undermines democracy (including vast accumulation of wealth and business unaccountability to citizens and consumers).

[dpibel]

162. You mean like that Gates commie guy?

You are aware, aren't you, that Bill Gates Senior opposes eliminating the estate tax?

The fool must think that an estate tax has some basis in a capitalist society.

Then again, maybe he's just a closet Red.

[prolesunited]

157. So if you are against creating

economic aristocracies, you are automatically a socialist or a communist?

Did you read any of the points how concentrated wealth is actually BAD for democracy and society as a whole and that it is actually in our own best self-interests, collectively, to see that wealth does not remain concentrated in the hands of a few.

Do you not see that the wealthy are buying control of the government out from under "we the people"? Does that not bother you? Don't you think that is something we should work to prevent? I certainly do not wish to live in a country run by and for the benefit of the corporate elite. Do you?

[dpibel]

161. Pursuit of happiness

Could you please post a copy of your Constitution.

Mine seems to have dropped that "pursuit of happiness part," and I'd sure like to have that Constitutionally protected.

[IrateCitizen]

169. Yeah, mine is missing that as well... but I'll tell you what IS there

Something about "promote the general welfare".... ;-)

[camero]

171. Promoting the general welfare

which ensures the protection of liberty. Which I think means when all the people are taken care of, then all can have liberty.

[camero]

126. no "apptitude" involved

Even then, you need some kind of "benefactor", either a lender or giver of startup funds, or help with labor.

The motivation you speak of is the threat of starvation and death if the said employee doesn't "produce".

You don't understand what I am saying apparently. I mean to do ALL the physical and mental work yourself. It simply can't be done without other people.

[IrateCitizen]

100. They already do

But, like any OTHER financial transaction, it should be taxed.

You make it out as if the government seizes ALL of their assets. That is patently false. The government taxes that wealth at a certain percentage AFTER it passes a certain threshold (which was $1.3 million for a husband and wife passing money on to their kids, and was scheduled to be bumped up to $2 million).

It's a tax on a financial transaction, that's all. I'm sorry, but I don't find it to be any kind of an insult to tax people on money that they did nothing to earn themselves.

[highlonesome]

106. read the other post

I was replying to a post that said it's opnly fair if everyone starts out with $50.

[IrateCitizen]

118. And in a theoretical sense, it's true

Adam Smith recognized as much in The Wealth of Nations when he set forth one of the guiding principles of a successful free market economy being that everyone starts out in a position of complete equality. Now, we all know that this is an impossible condition, unless the entire system is reset at regular intervals as frequent as at the end of every day!

But nonetheless, that does not discredit the truth in the statement that an economy will never be TRULY fair unless everyone starts out at the exact same level -- even if it is not something that can be projected into reality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

191. Just a financial transaction

Yep, your father or mother just died, now the government is going to take a really big chunk of their stuff. Why? Because it can.

[IrateCitizen]

202. The government will take 19% of everything over $2 mil

It doesn't seem that you're really hurting on that deal financially. And no amount of money can ever make up for the loss of a mother and/or father.

[Muddleoftheroad]

204. Taxing at death

Is an evil concept. Why tax something that has already been taxed during life? Just because you can, right?

[IrateCitizen]

208. For the last time, I'll offer facts instead of opinions

The following is found at this site: http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html

Myth: The estate tax is a “death tax.”
Fact: The estate tax is not a tax on death. It’s a tax on the transfer of large amounts of money. Ninety-eight percent of Americans who die pass their estate on to their heirs completely tax-free — in fact, they get a valuable tax break on capital gains. Zero estate tax is charged on assets left to a spouse or to charity.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close.
Fact: This issue has been wildly exaggerated. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell.
Fact: As with family businesses, this issue has been distorted. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax is “double taxation.”
Fact: The phrase “double taxation” is a rhetorical device meant to confuse the issue. Money is taxed any number of times as it cycles through the economy, generally during transactions. Workers, for example, pay income, payroll, and sales taxes on their wages. What’s more, the bulk of the largest estates, which consist of unrealized capital gains, would never have been taxed were it not for the estate tax.

Myth: The estate tax “confiscates” over half the value of all estates.
Fact: For 98% of Americans, the estate tax takes away nothing. For the other 2%, the average effective tax rate is 19%.

Myth: The estate tax discourages work and inhibits capital formation.
Fact: There is no hard evidence that U.S. capital accumulation has been held back by the estate tax. There is evidence, however, that large inheritances do reduce work effort and saving among recipients.

Myth: The estate tax raises little revenue, so repealing it will have no effect.
Fact: In 2001, the estate tax raised $28.4 billion for the federal government. That’s about 7% of the non-military discretionary budget. Permanent repeal will cost at least $796 billion between 2012 and 2022. This will deprive the Treasury of resources that could be used to address pressing needs such as safeguarding Social Security, improving education, or extending prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Myth: The wealthiest Americans use tax shelters to completely avoid paying estate taxes.
Fact: Most estate tax revenue comes from the top 0.15% of Americans – the few thousand people each year with estates larger than $5 million. In 2000, an even smaller and wealthier group, the 549 people with estates greater than $20 million, paid almost a quarter of all estate taxes that year – for an average tax of $10.4 million per estate.

Myth: The estate tax doesn’t raise enough revenue to cover the cost of collecting it.
Fact: This staple of talk-radio shows is based on an imprecise guess made by a researcher back in 1987. It was based on faulty assumptions, and is easy to disprove. While the estate tax has raised about $28 billion in each of the last few years, the budget for the entire Internal Revenue Service amounts to only $8 billion a year.

Myth: The estate tax is unfair.
Fact: Unfair compared to what? Should revenue come from a tax on wages? Should it come from sales tax? Or should it also come from the estates of multi-millionaires? The estate tax is eminently fair. It is collected from those most able to pay, and it encourages the recycling of wealth through the non-profit sector. It limits the size of family dynasties that would otherwise distort our democracy and shrink economic opportunity for succeeding generations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

232. Marketing vs. reality

Myth: The estate tax is a “death tax.”
Fact: Of course it is a death tax. It only happens at death. What else is it? A professional wrestling tax?

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close.
Fact: Some families get wildly screwed by this. You just don't care about them because they are wealthy. So if a wealthy person builds a business, he or she is not allowed to pass it down to children. Doubt me? Read up on the Jack Kent Cooke estate. He tried to pass the Redskins to his son, but the complexities of, drumroll please, the estate tax prevented it.

Myth: The estate tax is “double taxation.”
Fact: Of course it's double taxation. I was taxed and saved that money. You were taxed and spent it. Now I get taxed again and you didn't. Hmmm, sounds like a double hit to me.

Myth: The estate tax “confiscates” over half the value of all estates.
Fact: 19% of $1 million is $190,000. That's quite a sizeable hit you hide behind your 19%.

Myth: The estate tax discourages work and inhibits capital formation.
Fact: Of course it discourages work. Why kill yourself saving for your children when you know, at a certain level, Uncle Sugar decided a good chunk of it belongs to the state?

Myth: The estate tax raises little revenue, so repealing it will have no effect.
Fact: I have no doubt it raises a lot of revenue. Double taxing people is bound to do so.

Myth: The wealthiest Americans use tax shelters to completely avoid paying estate taxes.
Fact: Invert your stats for a second. 75% of all estate tax money came from the people who had estates valued between $5 million and $20 million. These are no the uber wealthy. These are people who worked for their money in most cases. Now the government gets to come along and take a lot of it back, after taxing it a second time.

Myth: The estate tax doesn’t raise enough revenue to cover the cost of collecting it.
Fact: I couldn't care less.

Myth: The estate tax is unfair.
Fact: Of course it's wildly unfair. I have stated my views supporting a flat tax with a hefty floor elsewhere in this thread, but I hate unfair taxation and double taxation.

[Q]

62. The intention:

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:136

[highlonesome]

65. an excellent point

The problem is not that people have the liberty to accumulate as much wealth as they are able, but the fact that this accumulation of wealth imparts to them a more ready access to government, individual lawmakers, and therefore input on policy and legislation.

So to me, it's lobbying and campaign finance reform that are the problems.

[IrateCitizen]

73. Once again, it's a values question

I know there is a natural aversion to the "V-word" by those of us on the "left". But we'd better damn well start embracing it, because the right uses it quite effectively to pursue perverted ends.

You said, "The problem is not that people have the liberty to accumulate as much wealth as they are able, but the fact that this accumulation of wealth imparts to them a more ready access to government, individual lawmakers, and therefore input on policy and legislation.

I think you're drifting into libertarian (as in CATO, et. al.) territory here, and in doing so, are missing an important point.

The problem lies not in wealth accumulation, but in the way that wealth accumulation is VALUED. In our society, it is valued over pretty much all else. After all -- that's EVERYONE'S dream, to "strike it rich". Get rich, and your problems will be over.

This kind of attitude leads to a society in which wealth is accumulated at the expense of others. "Profit over People," as the title of the Noam Chomsky book says.

So long as this kind of attitude prevails, it doesn't matter what you try to do with regards to lobbying and CFR -- it will ALWAYS be circumvented by those who hold the most wealth and power, because the "name of the game" will still be to accumulate as much wealth and power as you can.

However, if you place your emphasis on creating a more caring, cooperative society -- one in which people come to the realization that their self-interest is best served not through extreme selfishness, but through cooperation and compassion -- then the idea of wealth accumulation will, by and large, fall by the wayside. People will realize that true wealth lies not in how much money we accumulate, but by the ties we develop with our fellow human beings. It will be seen that cooperation will serve much better to get us through rough times than any amount of money.

The period after WWII saw this realized to a degree -- probably more so than any other period in history. People who lived through the depression learned the value of helping each other out -- for some, it was the only way they made it through. And this carried over into the formation of a more egalitarian society in which ostentatious displays of wealth were frowned upon. But that idea faded under the embrace of opulence by the Reagan Administration, and the "greed is good" attitude that followed.

[redqueen]

70. Lovely topic, thanks for starting it!

"Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?

Agree completely. The reason is simple. Wealth is power. With power comes corruption. If there is no check on that power, then you will end up with a system of government that is controlled by those with the power to influence those that make and enforce the laws.

On a more pragmatic note, economically speaking, the growth of an economy will be stagnated if the masses do not have adequate power to purchase goods and services. The consumer dollar is 2/3 of the driving force of any economy, so if the larger proportion of the population is living on subsistence wages, then by definition there is little room for economic expansion. Allocating the wealth more evenly ensures that a greater share of the populace will have enough disposable income to purchase goods and services in the amounts needed to generate sustainable profits to corporations.

"Pervading American society is the belief that we make our own fate and everyone starts our with an equal opportunity. True or false?"

Undoubtedly false. Anyone who has any experience with those in the 'upper crust' knows that those who start out with that advantage are miles ahead in the race than those who start out from more humble beginnings.

"Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?"

I think equating the division of wealth, and therefore the balance of power, more fair, to 'punishment' is abhorrent. A punishment is something meted out in response for a perceived wrong. A reward is something given in response for a perceived right. Making the balance of power more fair is not a punishment on the more wealthy nor is it a reward to the poor. This characterization illustrates a mindset that really makes clear just how materialistic our soceity is. IMO it accepts a priori that greed is somehow 'just' and acceptable, and I, for one, don't accept it.

"If we allow economic inequality because we believe in social equality — the basic fairness of the race — is it not the government's responsibility to make sure the race actually IS fair?"

Good question. The problem is how to ensure the race is fair. When people are born into wealth, and therefore born with an advantage, then there really is no way to ensure fairness unless you take that wealth away completely and start everyone off at zero. I don't think anyone would say this is in any way fair or just.

"I what ways is the race to the top not fair? What role, if any, should government play?"

Well as the saying goes, 'life isn't fair'. There really isn't any way to guarantee it ever will be.

IMO the ways government can help to ensure that people are given by and large a fair shot are through progressive taxation, subsidies for the less fortunate, and adequate protection for workers to ensure they're less subject to exploitation. Regulation of corporations is another way to ensure that they don't accumulate too much power, and IMO they should not be granted 'personhood'. That topic needs a lot more attention. I'm sure there are many more ways to go about it... that's just a few off the top of my head.

[Jose Diablo]

84. Excessive executive pay is caused by diluted shareholder control

What should happen is the executives boss, i.e. the shareholder determines the compensation for the top executives.

But because mutual funds recieve much of their money through employee retirement plans, a la 401K and IRA's, shareholder voting on executive compensation is limited. Actually shareholder voting in these circumstances is non-existent.

The operators of the funds are from the same mold as the executives. I think if a study was done, we would find a cross-purchasing using retirement funds between a relatively small number of individuals. These folks indeed vote for each other by using our money to further each others agenda.

I think the core problem is the corresponding vote that should follow the ownership of the money has been separated.

[highlonesome]

125. another excellent point

Either give me a decent return on my investment or no raise for you!

[lancemurdoch]

99. Where does "income" come from?

The question is, where does income come from for a person?

For most people, almost all of it comes from working.

For a small minority, it comes from being what Keynes called a "rentier". In other words, they held control of property or capital and live off the rent, profit and/or interest they got via that. They live off money that other people earned.

I don't see any need for "even-handedness" for whatever. The heir who owns shares of my corporation, and thus expropriates part of the wealth I create; the landlord who lives off my and others wages; the bondholder who lives off the interest I pay for owning a home, or that he gets from me for the taxes I pay for national deficit debt interest - I consider all of these people parasites living off of me. The right bangs a drum that people who don't work and live off your work on welfare are parasites, but look baffled when you point out that Paris Hilton lives off the wealth created by hotel workers like a parasite. At least the people on welfare have an excuse - the right tries to maintain a system where 5-6% of the population is purposefully kept unemployed - how can you try to keep people unemployed and then blame them for being unemployed?

The only thing keeping me paying a landlord is the fact that a policeman would come to my door, nightstick and gun at his side, and demand I pay the lord his corvée. In other words, he calls for his force to be used against me if I don't pay him a portion of my work effort.

[highlonesome]

114. I've heard that

I've often heard that idea before -- that 5 - 6% are kept ynemplyed on purpose to somehow benefit capitalism as an economic system. In all honesty I don't understand how this works -- can you explain?

[dpibel]

142. A hungry labor pool is a compliant labor pool

In order for employers to be able to maintain the unassailable upper hand in wage bargaining, they have to have a pool of people vying for the available jobs.

If there's full employment, they lose some of the edge, since they can't say, "How could I pay you more, when there are people beating down my door to do your job for less."

[redqueen]

185. Keeps interest costs down

I've heard it attributed to Kissinger, but I'm not sure if he was the originator or is just quoted as saying it. I've also heard it said that it's more about keeping labor costs down. Not sure which is the more popular theory.

Regardless, re: interest rates, it's been shown to have been not exactly factual. For a while we had unemployment at around 4% and there was no significant rise in interest rates.

Labor costs did go up, though, but that's good for the economy as a whole.

[dawgman]

124. I agree with you on just about everything, but weath cannot be created.

It can be accumulated. Wealth is a resource based on the "natural" resources for which it is used as barter. Wealth is finite. Think about that. Think about wealth or money being as rare as some of the other resources, Water, oil, old growth forest...

That is why war is being agressively waged against the middle/lower classes. The finite supply of wealth is running out at the same time as the resources our system is based upon are running out. New resources must be discovered or we are heading into a REALLY interesting half-century.

[highlonesome]

127. Rifkin

Ever read "Entropy" by Jeremy Rifkin? Good book and talks a lot about what you're saying.

But wealth can be created separate from resources: intellectual ideas can be turned into income without use of natural resources. While much of this wealth is due to the value of ideas as a way in which to exploit and control resources there are some forms of intellectual property which are purely separate from resources. Works of art and literature are the first that come to mind.

[dawgman]

133. Well art yes. But would lit or music have any intrinsic wealth creating

value if there is no advertising on the radio station or no paper with which to print the books? And has wealth been truly created with a painting? If I don't like the painting, I won't pay a dime for it. I don't care how much someone tells me it is worth. Art seems to have the illusion of wealth or value. It seems to subjective. Maybe a sub-category, exception to the rule? :7

And no I haven't read that book but now it is on my list thanks.

[camero]

136. Even that isn't "created"

Becuase everything in our minds comes from the culture, i.e. what we are taught. Which means that even our thoughts are not new, only retreads of old ones.

[dawgman]

137. good point, that which we value is naught but what society at large values

(most of the time)

[yagotme]

141. Thought creation

So, who taught the guys at the Manhattan project? Who taught their teachers? Did the Egyptians also have space flight in 1000 BC, and the information passed down to now? I'd like to see their diagram of the space shuttle. And the computer and software they used to store this information. And the new model Lexus chariot, with satellite radio. Gotta watch those horsepower emissions, though.

Perhaps, though, there are ones that think outside their box, who imagine things as they should be, not as they are? How is one taught this, other than self? Isn't that a sign of true genius, to see and think of things not thought of before?

[camero]

143. Nobody could even conceive the space shuttle

without looking at the heavens. Hence the thought of trying to get there. So without the stars and the moon, we can't think of how to get there. Hence there is also a "resource" that is tapped into.

You can't "own" molecules.

[dawgman]

146. Think of Isaac Newton who said, "I merely stood on the shoulders of Giants

It is an accumulation of Human understanding. I think you are giving individuals too much credit. Besides that really has nothing to do with wealth. Thanks for trolling though.

[IrateCitizen]

149. With regards to Newton...

While we can agree that it is a process of accumulation, that still should not diminish the undeniable genius of someone like Issac Newton. Think about what he did for a moment: he found that contemporary mathematics of his time were not sufficient for explaining his theories of motion and dynamics -- so he INVENTED calculus! Hell, I had a hard enough time UNDERSTANDING a lot of it when I was in college! He fucking INVENTED it!

While he never would have been able to invent calculus without the past mathematical achievements of others, that does not diminish the genius and ingenuity he displayed -- a genius far beyond what we consider to be the "norm".

[camero]

153. and he got that idea from Aristotle

who said that the earth wasn't flat. And came up with the concepts of orbits. That the eath revolved around the sun and not likewise.

So how do youcome up with the concept of gravity without asking how the planets stay in orbit?

[IrateCitizen]

160. You're missing my point, camero...

From my initial post:

While he never would have been able to invent calculus without the past mathematical achievements of others, that does not diminish the genius and ingenuity he displayed -- a genius far beyond what we consider to be the "norm".

I am in no way downplaying the past contributions upon which Newton pulled to develop HIS mathematical and physical concepts. What I am saying is that recognizing that fact in no way should undermine the incredible genius he demonstrated in his inventions and creations.

What you are doing seems to be advancing a behaviorist's view -- that humans essentially gain everything through the modification and learning of behavior, and that knowledge is really not much more than another behavior. All I am presenting is a slightly more constructivist view, that past knowledge (behaviors) certainly have a part to play, but so does the cognitive ability of the person in question.

[camero]

164. True, your right.

I was just arguing that to nitpick, we could go all the way back to the entity (whatever anyone wants to call it) that created the universe and say that he (or she) could sue us humans for patent infringment for taking its ideas...lol.

[dawgman]

158. Of course he was one of the greatest minds ever. But to say,

as the prior post did, that the proof of intellectual property creating wealth is in the fact that the Egyptians didn't have satelite radio in their chariots is ludicrous. In fact, one could examine the mythology of Ra and his chariot moving across the sky as inspiration for manned space flight. If the gods (who weren't much more than really cool humans) could fly to the stars, moon and sun, why not man. In actual fact, the human pharoahs did just that when they were coronated (ritualistically of course).

[yagotme]

154. Human understanding

What is human understanding, but individuals? Who is it that makes up humankind, BUT individuals? Or are you speaking of collectivism? Thanks for the troll comment, also. Way to make your argument.

[dawgman]

159. What are individuals but small parts of society? Come on, if no one(s)

taught the individuals the prior knowledge the individuals would have made no advances in knowledge. Without the influence of society around them would any of these advancements have been made?

[yagotme]

301. Society

provides the NEED, but individuals provide the ANSWERS. No "society" invented the actual method to go to the moon, it took a group of INDIVIDUALS to actually compose the vehicle, the propulsion, the need for air, food, storage, etc. SOCIETY wished that we go, and INDIVIDUALS provided the way. Please, please, tell me of an "idea" that was composed by a "society" alone. You can't because it is the individual, be it a king, or a peasant, that comes up with the actual idea. Society may provide a springboard, but the individual must make the actual leap.

[lancemurdoch]

180. Value creation

Can value be created? Well, let's say I have $10 worth of wood, and other physical materials were collectively $5 (nails, whatever). I bang it together for an hour or two and wa-la, a table that can be sold for $100. I've just created $85 of value. So value can be created with labor-power.

[camero]

183. and when you run out of wood

Your "value" has just gone bye-bye.

[dawgman]

221. labor without materials is valueless. Material without labor is valueless

and so we ask the age old question; what was exploited first the laborers of mother nature?

[camero]

231. Like the chicken and egg, huh?

My guess would be mother nature because she was here first.

Maybe I'm just losing track of the conversation but he just cited a microcosm of value to argue the worth of so-called "self-made men".

Making one is fine but he can't make 100,000 of them without some kind of help.

[dawgman]

234. I think that that is what they were doing.

The material has value...The labor has value...the owner has the material... his employees have the labor... I guess one must really ask how the owner came to own the material and by what right does he withhold it...which could lead us up to the ongoing debate about estate taxes...the perfect circle.

[camero]

243. Ah, yes

People just don't realize that we all just live in one very big house called Earth.

[yagotme]

300. A "rentier"

owns the property you are living in/using. He bought that, with his own funds, or through investors. He made a personal investment. If you don't like paying rent, then why don't you try purchasing? Then, of course, if you don't make the mortgage payments, you're going to see that same fellow with the stick and gun.

The Hilton Hotel is owned by the Hiltons, correct? If you don't believe they need the money, don't rent from them. If nobody stayed at the Hilton, it would probably go out of business very soon. With a loss of other jobs, though, also.

[janx]

129. SOCIAL DARWINISM IS A JOKE. And a bad one at that.

Don't be fooled by this nonsense.

[Cleita]

195. I've been meaning to tell you what a great post this is.

Thanks for putting it up.:-)

[Nikia]

225. As the spouse of a future beneficiary of a taxable estate,

My husband and I are for taxing large estates. It is an estate that generates a significant amount of revenue without causing hardship to anyone. My father-in-law is a successful lawyer and has saved money for his only son. My husband says that we shouldn't worry about saving for retirement or future children's college because we will have money. I almost think that it is unfair that we will some day get a significant amount of cash. I want to try to be successful in my middle class, median income career and save. If we get less money when they die because of the tax, we do not care if it means that we and others with even lower income are taxed less now than without the tax.
Really though, a lot of upper class advantage has to do with connections and being able to get 6 figure income jobs relatively easy. Most jobs, especially middle to upper income jobs, are never advertised anywhere. People get the jobs because they know someone. If you take advantage of upper class connections, you will have a lot easier time getting these jobs. I think this type of discrimination is common even though it isn't called discrimination.

[Nikia]

259. How about really providing equal employment opportunities

I am not sure about the technicalities of this, but an area newspaper mentioned in an article that 83% of employment opportunities are part of the hidden job market. That figure seems a little high. I have seen other sources saying 50-70%. That means in times of higher unemployment, if you don't know someone, you are out of luck. Even in times of better employment, many capable people are working at wages for much less than they are worth simply because they do not know about better positions. For positions that are not filled by neopotism, only candidates with very specific education and experience are given consideration, making it difficult for new graduates and people wishing to switch careers. I suppose that job hunting and networking are valuable skills, but they are not necessary skills for every or even most jobs. Ideally, all jobs with wage levels would be posted and testing of knowledge of skilled or positions requiring education would be used to select the finalists. I know that there are intangible factors, but too much discrimination on every level goes on to exclude a great many capable people. If this isn't a problems, how does any business hire people for minimum wage or even $8.00? How can companies get several qualified applicants apply for a job requiring at least 2 years of experience and a BS that pays $10.00?

[shivaji]

261. ONE common sense SOLUTION to Corporate thuggery

As much as private industry is responsible for prosperity, there is a huge amount of thuggery going on, mostly by unscrupulous CEO's. Recent examples include ENRON, WorldCom, etc.

There is a simple and elegant solution to this dilema, which lets us have our cake and eat it too.

RESTRICT TOTAL CEO (or highest paid employee) compensation to a maximum factor somewhere between 50 & 100. This will stop CEO's from obtaining exorbitant compensation packages with the collusion of "friendly" board of directors. In effect, such CEO's steal from the employees and the stockholders.

If a Corporation does good, the reward will have to be shared proportionately by ALL EMPLOYEES.

[redqueen]

269. Did you know...

that presidential canddiate Dennis Kucinich has advocated just such a method of dealing with the vast thievery by Sr. execs & CEO's? :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

271. Posting

I thought we weren't supposed to post negative stuff about the candidates.

[RainDog]

288. comments and plea

first the plea: Proles, will you please start a new thread on this topic so that dial-up users can read it?

I have copied many of the posts which contain links to other sites, and I did not copy all the back and forth...with most I didn't include the attribution simply because of the tediousness of copying and pasting all of the things I did with dial up.

Also- muddle-

I notice that you often talk about people being penalized for savings. In case you haven't noticed, there is no way someone can even keep up with inflation rates via savings...so to say that and inheritance tax comes from savings is simply not true.

There is no way to accumulate more than the 6550k or so in an estate to have it taxed based upon simple savings.

Some options for creating wealth from earned money include things like tax deferred annuities, of course, in which money is taken from a person's salary before income taxes are levied on that money...

therefore that money is not taxed initially --- which makes the double taxation complaint a lie.

not only that, but we do already tax money twice...money in those savings accounts which cannot even keep up with the rate of inflation, in fact...because the interest is taxed...money that did not exist until that person deposited earned money in an account.

which means that those with the least amount of money are being taxed doubly in the one way they can try to accumulate some sort of nest egg for themselves and their children.

why should they be taxed doubly while the very richest should not, if there are cases of double taxation?

in addition, it would be interesting to look at the way in which the stock market is rigged to benefit insiders over and over again throughout history. not just the recent insider trading, of course, but things like Bush jr.'s Harken Energy stock selling and his lies about the same.

as someone else mentioned, it more often in this country doesn't matter what you know but who you know as far as wealth creation in this country goes.

Ask anyone who is a part of the system. If they are honest they will admit this is true.

So all those kids born into dire poverty who only know others in dire poverty will likely never have access to the same opportunities as those who were born as the child of a president, for instance.

Why should those children be punished and the children of presidents be rewarded for the fate of who their parents happen to be?

I find it really sad, frankly, that you have so bought into the b.s. talking points of people like Bush, who rejoices that poor people are willing to let him screw them backwards and forwards in the name of their benefit, while he and his cronies laugh all the way to their banks in the Cayman Islands.

[Muddleoftheroad]

291. Raindog

First off, a compliment on the Tom Waits name if I am correct.

Next, I was using the term, "savings" as shorthand for anything -- money in the bank, investments, etc. All money that was taxed the first go-round. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

And, without complicating the issue, I don't think you should be taxed twice -- ever.

As for the talk about the kids, children of celebrities -- rock stars, baseball players and politicians always have it better. They always will.

[opihimoimoi]

292. Social Systems 587 HOW TO IMPROVE EXISTING SYSTEMS WITHOUT PAIN

We need to address this but the ones in power feel no need to.

I wonder why?

It seems the communication between us Humans are so much less effective than ants or bees. Primitive as the insects are, they carry out the chores neccessary to the survival of the nest.hive.

On the other hand, we Humans are threatening ourselves with selfextinction... and most of us, either we don't care, or we are unaware. Many are in denial and reject such a notion. Are we that lazy, unconcerned we let this go over the top??

I guess so cause I ain't seeing any movement out there and in fact, its going backwards to fantasy, "God will give us the answers, pray harder"

yeah, right.