Socialism

[Rumblood]

What is interesting to note is how defensive many working class people are of their capitalist keepers.  They believe in this myth of social mobility because of all the rags to riches stories in the media.  It's the kind of mass hysteria which takes place when people buy lottery tickets.  They're absolutely blind to their own captivity...I think there is a Platonic analogy like this.  Plato's cave?

Keep telling yourself that. In fact, I'M a case in point. Born into poverty, food stamps, parents barely able to afford to keep us afloat in the ghetto. Granny told me about why we never stayed in the same place. "When rent came due, ya'll moved."
I educated myself (no, not by paying for college), worked my ass off, sacrificed a lot of things along the way and made my way into the upper middle class because we had the opportunity to sink or swim. Last year, I paid in taxes what a manager of a fast food restaurant makes in a year.
Anyone who spews the kind of rhetoric that you did are either stupid or lazy or needs an excuse to explain their failure to rise. Or all 3.

Thomek, my dear man, you are forgetting the driving force behind humanity. Think sex. The goal of life is to live, and since life can't exist in one form forever it must procreate and give its progeny the best chance possible to live and produce progeny in its own turn. One way to give that chance is to pass along all of your physical resources and that includes money. And you don't give it to someone else because of some high falootin idea of "humanity". Check the circles of priority. It starts with you and your kids, then your tribe, then your race or country, then humanity. Humanity is a long way down the handout line.
Don't try to fight life, Mother Nature will just kick your ass.

[SixThumbs]

I'm surprised to find that the top 5% is only the upper middle class and after looking at the numbers the median income is a lot less then I thought it would be. But maybe you're right and some of us are too stupid and/or lazy to make our way to even the upper 50% but does that mean we should be treated as a dispensable resource for the machinations of others? Maybe you came from a family of little means but it sounds like yours at least had the cohesion of a more or less "traditional" family, not many in rags even have that. I don't doubt that you worked hard for where you've come in your life but yours is of a different generation then most of ours and where my great grandfather could afford a house and a "comfortable" retirement from working in a factory; those of the working poor and lower middle class are basically hanging over a precipice with increasingly limited options nowadays and the deck IS becoming more stacked against the common person, no matter his inclinations or motivations.

But, whatever, Dancing with the Stars is on, and I have to find out what happened with the Biebs.

[Thomek]

Thomek, my dear man, you are forgetting the driving force behind humanity. Think sex. The goal of life is to live, and since life can't exist in one form forever it must procreate and give its progeny the best chance possible to live and produce progeny in its own turn. One way to give that chance is to pass along all of your physical resources and that includes money. And you don't give it to someone else because of some high falootin idea of "humanity". Check the circles of priority. It starts with you and your kids, then your tribe, then your race or country, then humanity. Humanity is a long way down the handout line.
Don't try to fight life, Mother Nature will just kick your ass.

True, but 50m$ should be enough to take care of that. More is just ridiculous, and that sum should probably be lower. Soros and Buffet wants to start it around 4m$.. We are talking about what is best for most here, not just look at all the dynasties eat the world. 50m should be is enough to carry on "family based cultures of business".

I'm fully aware the super-rich don't WANT such a law, but it's one thing that is relatively overlooked, that can actually make a change in the long run. No one gains from the stale fronts of capitalism VS. socialism that exists in the current discourse. To have growth we need ideas, to get ideas we need to nurture the smart people and give them chances. Not just for education and basic needs, but for chances AFTER the education.

Most of those spots, all over the world, are taken by people who inherited those spots. This is just inefficient and wasteful. In my proposed system you would be at least 1 level higher than you are now, whatever it is that you do, and all those around you would have had the job because they deserved it.

If they already do, you are not working on a high enough level (yet, of course)

(click to show/hide)

(And perhaps I overdramatized the example with the factory earlier. I think generally It is mostly a case of behemoths slowly lumbering on to their deaths, in stead of freeing capital for more profitable and better businesses. That is also a waste, but more hidden and unmeasurable.)

Whats not to like about this idea?
+ Lower taxes for you.
+ More opportunities for you and everyone.
+ Less unfairness in society. (A reason why Scandinavia does well, it promotes trust, less crime, less corruption etc etc.. A nicer place)
+ Everyone has to work their way up. (Which is good, weeds out the weak ones. And well some probably start at 50m$)
+ More millionaires, less super-rich
+ More assets for sale at any one time, more dynamic economy.
+ No waste on Obscene luxuries, extreme luxuries are fine.
+ Since better people are behind the wheels, less wasteful business decisions.
+ You can make as much money as you want in your life, with lower taxes to boot.
+ IF you can't stand the idea that the state will take over your part of the company, you can just sell it before you die to whoever you like. The purpose of the law stays. (Of course the state will take the Cash you got from it, but thats just how it is, unless you choose to give it away to some higher purpose. )
- You can't give more than 50m$ to your kids.    (And you will be dead anyway, so who cares)

[Eugen]

After this discussion I know about the socialist vision - and about the truth, that this vision can not be achieved without a socialistic world-revolution.

Also I stay with the opinion that radical socialism does no good to a population, becouse it hinders healthy competition. But a moderate socialism with enough mayority (power) behind it would be a good counterbalance to the mighty enough capitalistic powers.

Especially since communism failed and mostly ceesed to exist, there is nothing much the capitalistic powers would be afraid of anymore. So this is maybe why they think they can do as they will and couse some trouble to the world by overzealous speculations and harrassing inferiors (broad population) with massive surveillance and reduction of welfare. Its easy becouse you know, the terrorists are out there and also to overcome crisis we (the inferior population) need a strog leadership and harsh measures be taken so we overcome this threats.

?!

So what is left to control overzealous capitalistic power?  Antiglobalizationgroups? Anarchists? Terrorists? Anonymus? Socialists? Wiki-Leaks? Pirates?

I think we are fucked anyway.

[Smithy]

Whats not to like about this idea?

Because it completely shafts the people who built up, or inherited and maintain those mega empires.  Somewhat similarly to the way John D. Rockefeller, lost his oil empire.  A man works his entire life toward a dream, and a hope that he can pass on the fruit of his labor, to his children and grandchildren, perhaps teach junior to one day run his father's company, only to find it taken from him, and essentially given to someone else. 

Perhaps I sound selfish, or perhaps I am misinterpreting.  I just don't see the justice in that but, its your opinion, your views.  Great discussion. 

[Thomek]

No, it shafts the ancestors of those who built up whatever they built. (Shafts.. well they should still have plenty to live from, imo 50m.. )

Without it, it's like selecting the 2020 olympic team from the sons of 2012.. (quote buffet)  We have to stop creating a rich aristocracy to rule the world, not stop the living from getting rich. Imo another course will only lead to revolution, once enough money and power is on few enough hands.. and I don't think thats good, considering the system can be fixed.

(Where's the justice of you paying 40% or whatever taxes to the state anyway, every goddamn year?)

Also, i have to say, a lot of people that are against these ideas, believe that they will get much richer than will actually the case.. Even if Rumblood ends up top 1% he will never have to pay this tax. This idea will literally only affect the richest 0.5% of society .. Perhaps even less. I'm sure someone can dig up the number as how many are worth 50+m.

Cheers

[Kalam]

Because it completely shafts the people who built up, or inherited and maintain those mega empires.  Somewhat similarly to the way John D. Rockefeller, lost his oil empire.  A man works his entire life toward a dream, and a hope that he can pass on the fruit of his labor, to his children and grandchildren, perhaps teach junior to one day run his father's company, only to find it taken from him, and essentially given to someone else. 

Perhaps I sound selfish, or perhaps I am misinterpreting.  I just don't see the justice in that but, its your opinion, your views.  Great discussion. 

I'm not sure how it isn't fair. We shouldn't be defined by our families. We should be defined as individuals. Nepotism isn't fair. What individual needs to inherit an Empire? The beauty of the dream of Empire, one would think, comes from the act of taking it yourself, rather than having it bequeathed on you by your mom or dad.

50 million is more than enough for a life of luxury.

However, I'm a weird, all said and done. I've never valued family as much as my childhood peers, and I've yet to be struck by the desire to pass on the line. Maybe it's a reaction to growing up in a culture where family was always first, and I'm just a rebel at heart. I don't know. What I do know is that there's always a better way to live life, and it's not with communities tied by blood. It's about the family you pick, not the one you're stuck with.

[Rumblood]

I'm surprised to find that the top 5% is only the upper middle class and after looking at the numbers the median income is a lot less then I thought it would be. But maybe you're right and some of us are too stupid and/or lazy to make our way to even the upper 50% but does that mean we should be treated as a dispensable resource for the machinations of others? Maybe you came from a family of little means but it sounds like yours at least had the cohesion of a more or less "traditional" family, not many in rags even have that. I don't doubt that you worked hard for where you've come in your life but yours is of a different generation then most of ours and where my great grandfather could afford a house and a "comfortable" retirement from working in a factory; those of the working poor and lower middle class are basically hanging over a precipice with increasingly limited options nowadays and the deck IS becoming more stacked against the common person, no matter his inclinations or motivations.

But, whatever, Dancing with the Stars is on, and I have to find out what happened with the Biebs.

A very nice and well meaning post, I do appreciate it.
But look, until I start seeing those "poor destitute" individuals drinking water instead of soda, rice and sugar (both very very cheap) instead of Lay's and Hostess brand snacks, generic brands instead of name brands, adequate shoes instead of the latest Nike's, affordable clothing instead of namebrand, the basics for makeup instead of hundreds and thousands of dollars on "beauty" products, hair and nails done at home instead of hundreds of dollars every other week, staying home instead of lingering around the "club", spending money on education, even if it is just books instead of spending it on alcohol and drugs, buying educational software instead of video games, finding ways to earn extra cash (and there are many ways, I've been there) rather than being glued to the cable box all weekend, well then, and only then will I buy the "whoa is me story" coming from the so called "common" man. If being common means chasing every status symbol before you have educated and worked your way to the point where you can provide yourself a good standard of living, put money away for retirement, and still have extra cash on hand to do those things? We need a hell of a lot fewer "common" people.
While people may label me with a word that starts with an "R", it isn't Republican or Right Wing. It is a Realist. And what I say is that it is time for people specifically in America and tangentially in most other developed countries to get real.

[Eugen]

@ Rumblood:
dont you think that its exactly this what is wanted that "the common man is glued to the cable box and chasing for every status symbol he can or even cant afford"?

Doesnt the industry and society in general support just that kind of lifestyle? Consume dont think!

If majority of people would think sane and withstand the temptations to buy unnecessarry stuff and instead would concentrate on education and inner disciplin to overcome theire inherited class-limitation, maybe many trades and industries would change radically. The markets of e-entertainmend (video consoles, digicams, flatscreens, smartphones...), sportscars, mascara and fashion would be ruined. Not to mention alcohol, tabaco and pharma industries.

And also it is so that people who end up without work in the arms of father states welfare for longer time really cant afford the luxury of above "unnecessaryties".

I really like the way of thought you imply, witch refers to everyones own responsibility for his life, witch can hardly be denied. Still society has long begun to capitalize on the lack of self responsibility of so many, who dont get up and educate themselves but stay at the low end of day-jobs in manpower leasing companies, in free work contracts without any adequate insurance, etc.

Further there are some who are at the bottom end of society by disability and pure bad luck in life (illness, accidents, coming out of really bad backgrounds, thrown back by private disasters, etc). Those people should not be forced to lead a life from water and potatos in insufficient heated flats. And dont tell me that in our days we can pass on the welfare of the unlucky in the hands of theire relatives or charity of good will. Social cohesion has declined to much for this to happen.

Especially if you think about the old and disabled you will notice that there is a downward trend in public funds, witch I think is alarming.

I think there is much truth in the sentence: A societys wealth can only be measured by the poorest members of it.

[Smithy]

I'm not sure how it isn't fair. We shouldn't be defined by our families. We should be defined as individuals. Nepotism isn't fair. What individual needs to inherit an Empire? The beauty of the dream of Empire, one would think, comes from the act of taking it yourself, rather than having it bequeathed on you by your mom or dad.

50 million is more than enough for a life of luxury.

However, I'm a weird, all said and done. I've never valued family as much as my childhood peers, and I've yet to be struck by the desire to pass on the line. Maybe it's a reaction to growing up in a culture where family was always first, and I'm just a rebel at heart. I don't know. What I do know is that there's always a better way to live life, and it's not with communities tied by blood. It's about the family you pick, not the one you're stuck with.

I agree that an individual should not be defined by his family name, the color of his skin, or the neighborhood he grew up in.**  However, who are you, or I, or anyone to say that a man should not be able to pass his company down to his son, given he is up to the task?  I somewhat understand your disdain for family owned corporations, but what is directly wrong with it?  Someone needs to fill the seats at the table, why not a person you know, and if it's for example your sibling, a person you know quite well.

As to the situation of the "Duck Faced Daughters", they will likely not inherit the corporation, if their father had any sense, he would have chosen a protégé essentially, to teach and to condition for when the day came, to take over the company.  Sure those women will probably receive a large inheritance, but if that's what the man who worked for all that money wants, then why not?  He worked for it, it's his to do with as he pleases. 

I suppose this is just the "Murican" in me, but I simply don't believe it's right for the government to be able to say what happens with what an individual has worked for, once he dies.  I thought that's what a will was for.

**I realize I am using a lot of male terms, this is just for simplicity and readability.

[Thomek]

Smithy, of course it is "wrong" in a gut sense. Just as wrong as taxes..    (The state take what you own to redistribute it as the majority of the people think is right.. well greatly simplified and ideal.)

I do understand your knee-jerk reaction.

But the fact is that in this world fewer and fewer people own more and more of the wealth, and this trend is just continuing. The meritocracy part of capitalism just doesn't work as intended. In stead it seems we are building an Aristocracy of the rich, taking all the best opportunities from those with actual merit.

Now, I'm not some paranoid left winger who reads conspiracy theories. In fact I disdain them because I think they just just cloud the view of many people, making them unable to see the real issues, which are often much more mundane and boring..

The price is to hurt the pride of dead people, and to sell the assets of their inheritors to those with merit.

Read more here: http://www.faireconomy.org/estate_tax/AFET_principles

or watch this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRUvigl_Hj0

I'd think they would go further if it was realistic to achieve though.

[Kafein]

The thing is, the goal of the economy is to provide incentives that make people cooperate naturally, each for their own interest, instead of having to learn and spend time to do everything you need yourself. That's the point. If some people are becoming absurdly rich while others don't, that's just a biproduct of the system. Who cares as long as our standards of living keep on increasing?

[Kalam]

A very nice and well meaning post, I do appreciate it.
But look, until I start seeing those "poor destitute" individuals drinking water instead of soda, rice and sugar (both very very cheap) instead of Lay's and Hostess brand snacks, generic brands instead of name brands, adequate shoes instead of the latest Nike's, affordable clothing instead of namebrand, the basics for makeup instead of hundreds and thousands of dollars on "beauty" products, hair and nails done at home instead of hundreds of dollars every other week, staying home instead of lingering around the "club", spending money on education, even if it is just books instead of spending it on alcohol and drugs, buying educational software instead of video games, finding ways to earn extra cash (and there are many ways, I've been there) rather than being glued to the cable box all weekend, well then, and only then will I buy the "whoa is me story" coming from the so called "common" man. If being common means chasing every status symbol before you have educated and worked your way to the point where you can provide yourself a good standard of living, put money away for retirement, and still have extra cash on hand to do those things? We need a hell of a lot fewer "common" people.
While people may label me with a word that starts with an "R", it isn't Republican or Right Wing. It is a Realist. And what I say is that it is time for people specifically in America and tangentially in most other developed countries to get real.

Foods like that are designed to hook you in. I've always viewed it as an addiction, akin to any other. Sure, it doesn't have the dependency that cocaine does, but if a poor mother gives a child cocaine, can you blame that child for being addicted as a teenager? What if that teenager quits the habit, but his dependence affected how well he performed at school. In addition, he was in a class room with 40 other kids, not to mention the fact that his school didn't offer him the same quality of education as, say, some kid who went to an award-winning private school with 12 kids in each class.

It's easier to buy a $1 burger at McDonald's than it is to go through the trouble of cooking some rice and learning how to make it somewhat satisfying and affordable. What about healthy food? Your body tends to adjust to the food it was given when you were growing. That means if your mom fed you hamburger helper and walmart's mac n cheese regularly, it'll take you longer to slim down later in life than if you were fed on straight fruits, veggies, nuts, and whole grains. Oh, and that healthy diet? It costs. Let's say you box on your free time, or are a straight up boxer, or anyone who needs to consume more than the average amount of calories needed per day. A healthy well-balanced diet, then, costs at least $300 per month. For one person.

It's not for the common man that we'd want to do this. It's for the next Elon Musk or Bill Gates that could've been had he been given more of an opportunity earlier in life.

[Thomek]

Who cares as long as our standards of living keep on increasing?

According to Mr.Warren in the video I posted above, it doesn't. The growth for workers adjusted for inflation has been about 0 for the last 20 years. (Yes, technology adds standard on top of that)

(well for americans, but lets keep this america-centric for simplicities sake. Also, I'm talking about an idea which would need to happen globally, but it must be championed and enforced by U.S before that)

[Thomek]

double post..