Death, drugs and HSBC

[K. A. Pital]

Plutocracy is by definition undemocratic, since the actual voting power is not equal (one person - one vote), but one dollar - one vote instead. If you fail at understanding this basic fact, too bad for you.

[Ralin]

Plutocracy is by definition undemocratic, since the actual voting power is not equal (one person - one vote), but one dollar - one vote instead. If you fail at understanding this basic fact, too bad for you.

Hmm, well we only get one vote per person in the US so clearly the US is not a plutocracy. By that logic running a blog is undemocratic because it means one person is influencing more people than others.

[Terralthra]

If the logic is "one vote per person", then having a wealth cap doesn't disenfranchise anyone, since no matter how much money they make or do not make, they still get a vote. Your position is inconsistent.

[Ralin]

If the logic is "one vote per person", then having a wealth cap doesn't disenfranchise anyone, since no matter how much money they make or do not make, they still get a vote. Your position is inconsistent.

The issue is that Flagg is very specifically advocating denying them their free speech and expression. Again, spending money in the form of political donations and advertising and such is constitutionally protected free speech. Aside from all the other moral issues with arbitrarily taking away the wealth they've worked so hard to accumulate, either personally or by proxy through their parents and grandparents or whatever.

[K. A. Pital]

Again, spending money in the form of political donations and advertising and such is constitutionally protected free speech.

Lobbyism and political donations by non-physical persons (corporations) are not a form of free speech. They may be protected otherwise, but they are not 'speech' in any sense. You do not 'accumulate' wealth by proxy (i.e. by randomly being born to wealthy parents) - that is not actually earned wealth (see 'meritocracy'), as there is no actual effort spent to be born in a fat cat family. You do not accumulate wealth by working hard either: none of the Bangladesh sweatshop workers are becoming wealthy from hard work (but they do often die or become crippled for life from professional diseases).

[Bernkastel]

Stas, thank you. Really, the idea that such things are indeed free speech is one that really needs to die.

[jwl]

Flagg, when you say an income cap, are you literally talking about a cap on the maximum amount of income you can earn or do you just mean high income tax for high bands? If the former, why?

Income/ Wealth cap, including property owned, stocks and bonds owned, the whole fucking shebang. Basically you can accumulate as much wealth as you please until you hit the $999,999,999 cap, then any further liquid income goes right to the government coffers to be redistributed and used to fund important infrastructure, welfare, and education programs along with a myriad of other uses.

And honestly because billionaires are bad for society as it puts too much power into the hands of unelected ideologues willing to throw money at any candidate for any office with the expectation that those officials will do as Richie Rich says.

Who donates a billion pounds to a political party? I don't even think the entire donation pool of the tory party amounts to nearly that much and in fact I'm not even sure if it's legal.

[Channel72]

Look, a free market economy is always going to be in tension with a direct, or even representative democracy. The very fact that I live in an environment where I can accumulate wealth by harnessing the needs or desires of some market sector or niche to generate revenue means my own personal purchasing power is correlated with the revenue of a corporation. Which is a fancy way of saying I can do more stuff and influence more people than others who exist in the same network of humans. I can become a more highly ranked "node" in the network of human beings. Purchasing power isn't the only form of "rank" in a network of humans - but it facilitates the accumulation of other forms, such as social connections (who's in your rolodex/linkedin account).

The problem is that there's not really any known alternative system that has a chance of stabilizing, apart from perhaps a centrally controlled command economy. The best you can do is apply band-aids. Income caps might help - but not so much. On paper, the founds of Google make something like $1 a year in salary. But their personal purchasing power and overall "rank" is extremely high, since they wield immense control over corporate assets. Putting a cap on personal income is pretty meaningless - individual powerful people will still wield immense control over vast corporate resources. And putting an income cap on a corporation pretty much destroys the foundations of free market capitalism to begin with. Even if we heavily tax wealthy corporations (which we probably should), it still doesn't solve the problems of individual shareholders commanding enormous power of vast resources, even if their personal salary/bank account is capped at say, $100K a year.

[Ralin]

Lobbyism and political donations by non-physical persons (corporations) are not a form of free speech. They may be protected otherwise, but they are not 'speech' in any sense.

Yes it is, and the US Supreme Court agrees.

You do not 'accumulate' wealth by proxy (i.e. by randomly being born to wealthy parents)

Why, because Stas doesn't want it to be true? If one is the child of wealthy parents and they leave that wealth to him then yes, their merit transfers to him by proxy. That's why rich people's kids go to better schools and shit.

that is not actually earned wealth (see 'meritocracy'), as there is no actual effort spent to be born in a fat cat family.

And there's no effort spent being born unusually smart or athletic or having a knack for math. What's your point?

You do not accumulate wealth by working hard either: none of the Bangladesh sweatshop workers are becoming wealthy from hard work (but they do often die or become crippled for life from professional diseases).

That's because contrary to appearances they aren't the ones doing the work and manning the sweatshop. Their employer is, through them. As they agreed when they took the job. That's what working for someone else means. How crazy would it be if working on someone else's property somehow meant you owned that property?

[K. A. Pital]

How crazy would it be if working on someone else's property somehow meant you owned that property?

It is called a cooperative, dumbass, and in many ways it offers workers things they'd otherwise never have.

That's because contrary to appearances they aren't the ones doing the work and manning the sweatshop.

No, that's because you are a dumbass who chose the words 'hard work' to describe the high life of a capitalist.

And there's no effort spent being born unusually smart or athletic or having a knack for math.

Exactly. That is why they never earned shit to begin with. Just as people do not 'earn' something simply by being born.

[Ralin]

It is called a cooperative, dumbass, and in many ways it offers workers things they'd otherwise never have.

And the welfare of the workers has what the fuck to do with anything? I don't give a damn about your fancy cooperatives, but last I checked corporations weren't charities.

No, that's because you are a dumbass who chose the words 'hard work' to describe the high life of a capitalist.

Your delusions are not my responsibility, Stas.

Exactly. That is why they never earned shit to begin with. Just as people do not 'earn' something simply by being born.

Right, their parents or whoever they inherited from earned it, meaning they earned it by proxy. The fact that they personally did no work to get that wealth doesn't mean that they didn't earn it or change the fact that it belongs to him. No more than we pile extra taxes on a math savant or gifted writer because they didn't get their talents the honest way or whatever you're on about.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes it is, and the US Supreme Court agrees.

Operating on the legal fiction that corporations are people as a premise.

Emphasis there is on fiction.

Unless you are seriously going to make the argument that legally constituted corporations really are people (rather than being considered de jure people for the purposes of being liable for debt which was the original intent), who can be murdered, have religious beliefs, can be said to have ethical and moral responsibilities so society (the supreme court says they dont, by the way), and most importantly, have the autonomous power to vote... then your position--and that of the supreme court--makes no logical sense.

in the Citizens United case, the court was hemmed in by hundreds of years of legal precedent that--often due to corruption, frankly--slowly expanded the degree to which corporations were considered de jure persons. Other parts of our legal system have been built on that insane premise, so striking it down was not a practical option and some members of the supreme court (like Thomas and Scalia) are corrupt as fuck.

If you want to sit there and say that money is speech, fine. If you want to say that the supreme court had no realistic option but to rule the way they did in citizens united, fine. But do not also sit there and say that corporations really are people, and that attempts to curb their political influence by restricting their participation in the political process is somehow an affront to human dignity, unless you are willing to go All The Way with it, and open up cannibalism investigations every time there is a corporate merger.

[Ralin]

Operating on the legal fiction that corporations are people as a premise.

Emphasis there is on fiction.

I was referring to the money is speech part more than corporate personhood. That said...

Unless you are seriously going to make the argument that legally constituted corporations really are people (rather than being considered de jure people for the purposes of being liable for debt which was the original intent),

Corporations are one of the means by which people, mostly people with lots of money, express rights like free speech.

have religious beliefs,

Were you not paying attention to the whole thing with Hobby Lobby?

can be said to have ethical and moral responsibilities so society (the supreme court says they dont, by the way),

And the police have no obligation to protect you. Your point?

and most importantly, have the autonomous power to vote... then your position--and that of the supreme court--makes no logical sense.

Corporations' voting rights are expressed through their individual owners and shareholder, making corporate voting rights unnecessary and redundant. Individuals usually can't handle advertising campaigns and large scale fundraisers and such on their own, so it's a different story

[K. A. Pital]

If you are seriously delusional to the point where you conflate a pile of money (=property) with inherited abilities or disabilities, I see no reason not to call you a dumbass again, Ralin. Your argument was 'how can someone take something that someone got from hard work'. I demonstrated sufficiently that the other someone did not do any work to get it. Ergo, there never was a right to property. Property is a social invention, like language. And you cannot just say someone has an exclusive right to the language. So why do you think I should express support towards the idea of someone having an exclusive right to wealth by birth? That makes zero sense to me.

[Ralin]

If you are seriously delusional to the point where you conflate a pile of money (=property) with inherited abilities or disabilities, I see no reason not to call you a dumbass again, Ralin.

I'll take that as seriously as the opinions of all the other Internet Maoists.

Your argument was 'how can someone take something that someone got from hard work'. I demonstrated sufficiently that the other someone did not do any work to get it. Ergo, there never was a right to property.

Again, they did it by proxy. And inheritance is a concept that goes back a long way. And US law agrees.

Property is a social invention, like language. And you cannot just say someone has an exclusive right to the language. So why do you think I should express support towards the idea of someone having an exclusive right to wealth by birth? That makes zero sense to me.

I don't really care if you support it and I don't think anyone else does either. Why should your wacky 'eat the rich' ideas be taken as seriously as the United States Supreme Court and the democratically expressed will of the freedom loving American people?

[K. A. Pital]

I'll take that as seriously as the opinions of all the other Internet Maoists.

If internet maoists are beating you in matters of intelligence (and they're not the brightest type), I feel sorry for you.

And inheritance is a concept that goes back a long way. And US law agrees.

And?.. You tried to make a moral case for inheritance, but you failed. Law means nothing when you are making a moral argument. Several decades ago the law could throw a man into jail for being gay. Several centuries ago the law would be fine with slavery. Tradition means even less.

Why should your wacky 'eat the rich' ideas be taken as seriously as the United States Supreme Court and the democratically expressed will of the freedom loving American people?

Because of the above. I do not try to cover up a moral failing with the fig leaf of the law, but you do. Once again, I feel sorry for you. I am literally ashamed that I have to explain it to you. I came here to show the logical failure of your argument. I do not care if you take my ideas seriously, neither am I interested in you thinking the same as I do.

No well-off first-worlder will ever understand me and those like me, anyway, so I only point out just how wrong you are, and that's it.

[Ralin]

And?.. You tried to make a moral case for inheritance, but you failed. Law means nothing when you are making a moral argument. Several decades ago the law could throw a man into jail for being gay. Several centuries ago the law would be fine with slavery. Tradition means even less.

The law recognizes inheritance because stealing is fundamentally wrong. Something has to happen to your money and property when you die and as the person who owns it stands to reason that you should be the one to decide what. If you choose to pass it on to your kids than you still earned or created it somehow, meaning that you in turn decide who deserves to have it next. Ergo your kids deserve it and earned it by proxy. Just like a factory owner owns the factory's profits despite not physically working the assembly line.

Because of the above. I do not try to cover up a moral failing with the fig leaf of the law, but you do. Once again, I feel sorry for you.

What moral failing? Other people don't decide how you spend your wealth because stealing is wrong. The rest follows.

[Aleva13]

Your claim that inheritance is right because stealing is wrong makes as much sense to me as saying air travel is right because murder is wrong. It's a complete non-sequitur. I'm also starting to wonder if you are even reading the posts you are replying to.

edit: furthermore, there are cases where stealing is not wrong, namely, when not stealing food leads to your children starving.

[Channel72]

No well-off first-worlder will ever understand me and those like me, anyway, so I only point out just how wrong you are, and that's it.

Sorry, I can't hear your argument over the sound of my AMEX bill filled with overpriced dinners.

But seriously, I'm curious to know what alternative system you'd propose to first world free-market capitalism. I personally think a non-shitty version of a Soviet-style command economy might work if economic decisions were largely computerized, so that resources could be allocated as dictated by the "market" (wherein the market would be defined as the needs of various state-controlled industries and/or state-sponsored private industries) as long as the data-feeds were available freely over the Internet so there would be total transparency.

But that's not going to happen, because free market capitalism works "just enough". In other words, the suffering and inherent unfairness it creates aren't sufficient to offset the material luxuries first worlders enjoy - and the "underclass" (i.e. the working poor) are distracted enough by the cheap entertainment they have access to, which largely prevents massive social upheaval by the under-privileged 20%. The fact that the "means of production" and political clout are largely concentrated in a few oligarchs just doesn't result in enough resentment, because your average first worlder still has access to material luxuries, education, and beer.

[K. A. Pital]

The law recognizes inheritance because stealing is fundamentally wrong.

Just like gayness was fundamentally wrong and slavery wasn't fundamentally wrong, right? I mean, what the fuck does this even mean? From an antrhopological perspectivel the law is just another social invention. It does not answer questions of fundamental right and wrong, although it is an approximation of society's morality system. Which can be pretty hideous, because the society can be hideous.

But seriously, I'm curious to know what alternative system you'd propose to first world free-market capitalism.

So far we're only talking about severely taxing inheritance, not even looking at any alternatives. And even that simple idea of returning a part of completely undeserved wealth to society is hard to accept for some.

[His Divine Shadow]

It's not like we have to find some alternative to capitalism, we just need to pull in the reigns, capitalism is a retarded animal without any bowel control that ruins everything around it by spraying it with shit and piss. It needs to be gagged and bound up and put into a box.

[K. A. Pital]

The taxation rate for largest inheritances used to be at 70-80% in the 1960s and 1970s. I am being grilled for 'alternatives to the system' for suggesting to restore a practice that was common in the UK and US just a few decades ago? *laughs* Wake up folks. What I am suggesting is just common social-democratic measures that were normal until big business bought the social democrats whole.

Mind you, some countries with a strong s-d tradition still tax large inheritances at 40% to 70% percent.

[Starglider]

The primary moral justification for inheritence has always historically been that the family is treated as a distinct moral agent similar to a contemporary corporation. In most traditional societites family members are somewhat subsumed into the whole, sharing benefits and obligations, and families as a whole have social and legal relationships with each other. This is an entirely natural and logical consequence of organisms with close genetic similarity co-operating to enhance the joint survival probability of their genes.

The idea that morality should attach solely to atomic individuals, rather than holding families jointly responsible, only gained popuality quite recently and has obviously not fully replaced dynastic thinking.

[K. A. Pital]

I have never doubted that you could give a smarter answer than 'inheritance is in the US law dammit', Starglider. Neither do I dispute the idea that collective rights and collective responsibility have been the norm in the past. What follows from the facts, though, is that European liberalism has undermined collectivism in the form of the tribe, or extended family, destroying collective childraising and property-independent relations inside the family, in the meantime rolling over the expanded sexual freedom of ancient societies, but retained the principle of inheritance which most greatly benefits the already wealthy as opposed to the zero-starters.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The biggest problem that I have with tax-free inheritance is that it misallocates capital away from merit. The meme of the hard-working business person with a useless kid exists for a reason, and even if the 2nd generation is incompetent and shrinks the family business value by half from, say, $50MM to $25MM, they will still be able to afford to send their kids to the best schools, crowding out people who actually deserve to be there on merit, buy real estate all over the world, driving prices up for working families, etc. While money itself can be printed, the value it represents must be produced, and allocating resources to non-creative, ruthless, and/or dishonest people necessarily means taking it away from potential entrepreneurs born lower on the socioeconomic spectrum whose ideas could have enriched the society and world. With a death tax set at, say 50%, only rich families that properly raise their kids get to have a dynasty. Others will see their family fortune return to societal baseline by the 3rd or 4th generation, which is as it should be.