Society, Holidays etc (split from Ossus tax thread)

[Big Phil]

You know what - fuck it. Issue dropped. Duchess' plan for wealth redistribution aside, her ideas make a lot more sense than what we've got now.

[Broomstick]

Now that I've had a couple days to digest the proposal, and some time to compose a reply, I'm going down the list/recapping the original proposal.

My proposal would be to eliminate all exemptions, and start taxation at 25,000 USD, currently; people who have earned less than 25,000 USD pay out no tax at all. Taxation would then rise at the level of 1% per 4,000 USD and would be applied to the entire income, starting at 26,000 USD up to 226,000 USD, so that someone making 226,000 USD a year would pay 50% tax on their entire income (i.e., their net would be 113,000 USD). 50% is chosen since we can actually slightly exceed a 48% rate and still get gains higher than the reductions in propensity to work, broadly speaking. All income above 226,000 USD would be simply taxed at a 50% rate, with no deductions or exemptions throughout the course.

I'm OK with this progressive income tax. I presume there would continue to be other flat taxes such as sales taxes or perhaps luxury taxes and so on.

A 10% national sales tax would also be assessed, with the direct goal of controlling spending, minimizing it, and encouraging as much savings as possible to force responsibility in people. The sales tax would not apply to food and other basic items, and furthermore everyone making 30,000 USD a year or less would receive a 3,000 USD sales tax rebate, on the assumption they would have spent all their income, and also as a form of wealth transfer, as the rebate would actually be funded through general revenue.

I question that it needs to be 10%. In the US this would require quite a bit of restructuring due to the use of sales taxes for local governments. As with most Marina proposals, the implication is a strong central government.

Alternatively, there could be sales taxes apportioned to various levels of government. For example, the national government might get 5% and state/province 3% and local municipalities 2%. This would have the effect of providing more income proportionally for high population areas. People living in a rural areas might not pay city sales taxes, but they would also face greater costs in regards to food and goods transportation to their locations so this may all work out in the end. Rural people do not enjoy city amenities, after all.

All tax brackets would be increased by 10,000 USD for your first child, and 5,000 USD for each child after that.

Personally, I'd like to see a flat 10K for each child. If the reduction for subsequent children is a subtle population control then I'd suggest 10K for the first, 5K for the second, 2.5K for the third, and none for subsequent children. If you want a large family, fine, but you pay for it, the government/society will not subsidize it.

Upon reflection, I don't think parents should be penalized for multiple births, so perhaps this would be better expressed as 10K for each child of the first pregnancy, 5K for each child of the second pregnancy, etc.

Maximum personal wealth would be set at 100 million USD per person with another 50 million allowed for each child (note that each parent could separately claim those higher levels); all wealth above that level would be seized to fund social services.

I oppose a personal wealth cap. As I stated previously, I think this would be better served by limiting the inheritance of heirs. I have nothing against people acquiring wealth in their lifetime due to hard work (and contrary to what Marina has state, I don't think the self-made super-rich are sitting at home on their assets - we have billionaires like Paul McCartney who continue to work although clearly they do not need to do so.) I think we have to allow some wealth to be handed down to heirs, but there should be some incentive for healthy adults to work. Perhaps spouses should get a larger share (or the entire estate), and a higher amount allowed for disabled dependents.

Joint filing of taxes would of course be abolished, as it would no longer be relevant.

So.... if someone is a stay at home parent they're screwed? I think joint filing would have a role for such instances as stay at home parents who most certainly do contribute to the overall family situation Or perhaps this would become a means of indicating head of household for dependent adults (disabled, stay-at-home-parents, elderly parents, etc.) Single filing for adults with an outside income makes some sense.

Short term capital gains would be taxed at 25% and long-term capital gains at 20% for everyone making less than 226,000 USD yearly (or slightly higher for people with children). The rates would increase to 40% and 35% respectively based on your income tax scale, 1% for every 20,000 USD more of reported income above that limit (so that your short term capital gains tax would be 40% for people making $526,000 or more a year from other sources). For everyone making more. To avoid wealth seizure the very rich can divert funds into registered charities (including ones they form, but they must be registered and carefully regulated by the government only).

Why just charities? Why not allow investment in business, since that most certainly provides jobs for other people? Why not allow investment in scientific research? Energy generation? Mass transit? Educational resources? Basically, you want extreme wealth to be used rather than just sitting, and used for the benefit of society, right? So allow these tax shelters for a variety of enterprises rather than just charities.

Inheritance would be taxed at 90% with property valued up to 5 million USD per designated heir and family personal possessions exempted.

I'd rather just allow people to give their heirs a designated amount (sure, let's say 5 million) without that inheritance being taxed, but anything above that can not be passed on and goes to the state.

There may be issues with, say, art collections or the like. Perhaps there can be a mechanism whereby heirs can argue such a collection should remain intact. While there is much merit to forcing public display, some items we have exist only because they were preserved by private collectors.

The next item is quite a laundry list:

The money from this tax scheme would be used to completely convert American energy generation to nuclear and renewables, electrify and expand the railroads, replace every vehicle in the country with a hybrid or other clean technology vehicle, to institute full, universal, single-payer health insurance, to guarantee housing and food for every American citizen, and to make public universities free of all costs except for books and a notional $10.00 USD per credit per semester.

You realize the energy conversion will take some time, right?

I question if electrification is appropriate for ALL railroads. Certainly it can work in urban areas, but across large areas of largely uninhabited territory it may be more sensible to rely on fuel-carrying engines rather than electrification.

Again, the transition to hybrid/clean tech vehicles will take time. Will you provide a subsidy to those of lower income to either convert or replace their vehicles? I realize you wish to force everyone to mass transit, but again, outside of urban areas that won't be cost-effective and it might be cheaper to subsidize a conversion to more efficient personal vehicles. Also, some professions may not pay much but might require personal transportation rather than mass transit and such people should not be penalized.

I am, of course, in favor of universal single-payer insurance, which has been demonstrated to work in other places.

Guaranteeing housing and food are good ideas. The housing/food must be adequate, but not luxurious as we do not want to give incentive for people to stay on the dole who don't have to.

Public university costs: Yes, make people pay for their books and other "consumables". High performing students should qualify for scholarships not from a particular university but from the government to cover transportation and other expenses incurred if attendance at the school of their choice requires travel/relocation as well as tuition. However, I think your $10/credit hour is too small. I'd say $100/credit hour. This would be covered by scholarship for high-performing students. Alternatively, if someone doesn't want to pay tuition they can pledge service to the government - such and such period of time for each credit hour. This could be military service, but we don't need a massive military and not all people are able/suited to military service anyhow. Therefore, other means of serving should be available. I'm thinking, as an example, of the several years of service my college roommate gave by using her doctor skills in undeserved rural areas in return for the government subsidizing her medical school costs. Thus, students have three choices: bust your ass and get a scholarship, pledge a term of service, or pay up front. Or a combination of the above. I would also say this program should be applied to things such as trade schools as well as traditional universities. This would enable even the poorest people to get a quality education as well as encouraging a wide variety of education so those not suited to academics can still receive appropriate training. Society needs plumbers as well as doctors.

For example all Americans making less than $226,000 USD yearly would receive $100.00 a month in food stamps and $400.00 a month in housing credits which would have to be redeemed by anyone offering rent or in payment for any mortgage--these payments being denied to those making more each year as it's obvious that they're capable of providing food and shelter for themselves, and being continued to such a high level as a form of wealth redistribution that covers all of the middle class to mitigate a bit the high tax rates.

Why are you offering subsidies to those making such large sums?

I'd say the use of housing credits and food stamps should be used to guarantee a floor beneath which a person can't fall. Realistically, I'd say $200/month in food stamps ($100/month would be a challenge for me to live on, and I have a full kitchen, storage room, and the knowledge/ability to cook from scratch) for the rock bottom, gradually reduced as you go up the income ladder. Likewise, $800/month towards housing (which with I include utilities) for the bottom, gradually rising. So, hypothetically, someone with no income whatsoever would have $600 to spend on housing, $200 for personal items (soap, deodorant, laundry, clothes, transportation, etc.) and $200 for food, or $1000/month. For anything else they would have to do something to earn income or seek charity.

For the disabled or those not working in old age I'd increase all amounts by 50% as those categories incur higher costs, and housing credits could be used, for example, for modifying the home to accommodate physical problems or hiring someone to cook or clean house occasionally as these would be people who couldn't be expected to perform these tasks as well as the able-bodied, and to allow for special diets that might be required.

Note that, for the parent whose child turns 18 and loses the child tax adjustment, the child would acquire the $1000/month living allowance enabling the young adult to either strike out on their own or to stay home and contribute towards the family household. Destitute elderly would likewise be contributing to the household.

Any amount of these credits NOT spent will go into a savings account, to be held for 3 months. At the end of three months they will be released to the person to use however they wish, as a means to encourage savings even among the poor. Thus, someone thrifty enough to find housing for only $500/month and spend only $150 on food for a month will have a net gain of $150 for that month, collected three months later. This will encourage savings, as I said, but can also encourage pooling of resources and cooperation with others which I view as a social good.

The food stamps would also be provided for minor children, and would have to be accepted at all stores selling non-prepared food (housing credit would not be provided for dependents and children unless those children are attending college, wherein it would be provided to facilitate their college education, though public universities, required to offer food and housing under this scheme to students for free, could claim the food and housing credits the dependents receive toward their expenses when they are in college housing and food plans). This would make the effective gross income of a poor single person making $25,500 USD a year out to be $31,500 USD, a much more liveable figure, though of course all expenses except for sundries and food expenses greater than $100.00 a month would be taxed at 10%, plus local taxes, so it balances out, but it's still a substantial improvement, considering that retirement and healthcare would both be guaranteed, as would free public transit.

I would agree that $100 additional food stamps should be provided per child. For infants, mothers could use this towards formula, or towards their own diet if they are breastfeeding as lactating women do have higher nutritional and caloric requirements than non-lactating women. At 12, the food stamp allotment for children should rise to $150 for the teen years as teens do eat more than adults and nutrition is critical at that stage.

For dependents, the housing credits may need to be tweaked, but I don't think crowding people is healthy and a larger number in the household requires more space which costs more. Additionally, elderly and disabled people may require assistance around the house and in those cases housing credits might be reasonably put towards hiring such assistance. (This would be separate from medically necessary assistance)

I of course expect this to get ripped up, but it's a starting point, anyhow, for discussion on a genuinely equitable society. I suspect however the only people who would really oppose living under such a system will be rich Americans. I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment. Maternity leave would 60 days before birth, 16 months afterward at 80% for three months and 60% for the next 13, and the father would get 3-months post birth at 60% wages.

There is merit here, but what about the self-employed? Would we subsidize them taking leave or vacation? How would we do that? Certainly, a self-employed woman who takes maternity leave would at least have the "floor" to depend on, but should there be more? Or should those who are self-employed have the responsibility of saving up for such circumstances?

[Colonel Olrik]

Going back to the holidays topic and to give an example of what engineers in Germany can expect, my official job description is of a research Engineer with three/four years seniority. I get 30 days of paid vacation besides the days the company closes in the Christmas period, and have a 40 hours/week work time which is taken seriously and cannot be exceeded. Which means that overtime accumulates and has to be taken as vacations (As a result, my Christmas break will start next Wednesday instead of Friday).

My salary is quite adequate and I'm pleased with the fact that due to a mostly free education I have no debt to speak of. Its true that I'd be receiving more money in the US, mainly due to much lower taxes, but I prefer a thousand times the free time and if I had a kid/stay at home wife my tax bracket would be much lower - I'd be easily getting more than €1000 extra a month.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Two comments to Broomstick:

1. I realized the housing/food credit extended out much to far after some thought, and made a later revision progressively pulling it back (since eliminating it all at once would act like an additional tax). We might be able to adjust somewhat the values for the rollback.

2. Self-employed people are a somewhat serious issue, and I'd like to hear what some of our Swedes say about how they're handled in Sweden.

[Bilbo]

You know this is Duchess we are talking about. She once advocated a vote to determine if Northern Ireland should be forced to rejoin the rest of Ireland.

Now this would never work right? Because Northren Ireland likes the way things are you say and would not vote to join the rest of Ireland.

Well Duchess had a solution. She was going to allow every person in Ireland and in Northern Ireland vote on this issue. Since the Irish Republic has the larger population and wants to merge the pro-merge vote would swamp the vote of those in Northern Ireland. Basically she wanted to give outsiders the right to vote on an issue about Northern Ireland so that the vote went the way she wanted.

That is how she thinks. So when she trots out some new plans of her remember in the end people do not matter in her thinking. What matters is what she thinks is right and if she was given a chance she would find the way to manipulate thinkgs so that the vote was rigged her way.

[Coyote]

Smells like a bit of a vendetta, too.

[Stark]

Damn people pointing out how Zeon's simpleminded plans are unworkable and absurd.

The guy doesn't actually SAY you should disregard her arguments based on her personal qualities (although this is clearly his suggestion). He simply provided an example of her simpleminded plans being unworkable. Calling that a 'vendetta' (unless he's done it before) would be like banning everyone who rolls their eyes at Shep's predictable simplemindedness

[Bilbo]

Damn people pointing out how Zeon's simpleminded plans are unworkable and absurd.

The guy doesn't actually SAY you should disregard her arguments based on her personal qualities (although this is clearly his suggestion). He simply provided an example of her simpleminded plans being unworkable. Calling that a 'vendetta' (unless he's done it before) would be like banning everyone who rolls their eyes at Shep's predictable simplemindedness

Actually I was just pointing out that when she gets into topics like this her mindframe and thought process is so out there and warped that what is the point of really debating it.

You are also right though. Completely unworkable is a pretty apt description of things she suggests.

[Stark]

Oh yeah, I'm not defending this as a constructive addition to the thread or anything. It's certainly a red herring because logically the strength of argument a has no impact on the strength of argument b and weakening an argument by the identity of it's proponent is clearly ad hominem. If he's not going to break down this argument in particular on it's individual qualities he's wasting his time.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Damn people pointing out how Zeon's simpleminded plans are unworkable and absurd.

The guy doesn't actually SAY you should disregard her arguments based on her personal qualities (although this is clearly his suggestion). He simply provided an example of her simpleminded plans being unworkable. Calling that a 'vendetta' (unless he's done it before) would be like banning everyone who rolls their eyes at Shep's predictable simplemindedness

Actually I was just pointing out that when she gets into topics like this her mindframe and thought process is so out there and warped that what is the point of really debating it.

You are also right though. Completely unworkable is a pretty apt description of things she suggests.

Fuck this. Duchess can vouch that I am no fan of her histrionics at times, but this is total bullshit. Want to call out something as "unworkable", explain how it is so, with examples and real arguments, or get HoSed. That's how things work around here. If I had a penny for every time some American shot down some unorthodox or foreign-based solution as "unworkable" just because, with it implied that our Red White and Blue DNA doesn't mix with that effete Eurotrash stuff, I'd have opened some bank so big, it'd be receiving a bailout.

[Stark]

Didn't he do that with his Ireland example? He's being a red-herring guy, but that appears to be an example of one of Zeon's unworkable schemes. They're almost worth a thread of their own, but I deliberately don't participate in these threads for exactly this reason.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Didn't he do that with his Ireland example? He's being a red-herring guy, but that appears to be an example of one of Zeon's unworkable schemes. It's almost worth a thread of it's own, but I deliberately don't participate in these threads for exactly this reason.

Yeah, and we have his say-so that she suggested it. Is a single uncited case example completely unrelated to the implied and unsupported argument against her position in this thread reason enough to let this pass? Should I stomach people waltzing into any thread, regardless of my argument or contribution and saying, "Fuck IP, I say he once said this dumb shit"?

[Stark]

Oooer, sorry; I just edited the it's to theys. :S

Yeah I'm totally with you there, but it's not like he just showed up and said 'hurr hurr zeon dumb'. Like I said, it's something that he should start a new thread on (although honestly I think it'd be against the rules to do so?).

[Big Phil]

Since we're talking about the unworkability of Zeon's arguments, let me point out a few things. I'll summarize her arguments and then comment:

1. Eliminate all exemptions and start taxation at $25K and gradually increase the rate 1% for every $4k of income

While this makes taxation nice and clean, it does have the effect of ensuring that things such as home ownership, charitable spending, etc., which currently are deductions, become less appealing. Since Duchess doesn't value these things, it makes a lot of sense.

2. 10% National Sales Tax

Once again, focused on punishing behavior she finds objectionable, and to "encourage saving." Of course, she already eliminated all tax exemptions (such as 401Ks and IRAs) which offer tax benefits for saving money, so... while a national sales tax makes some sense, a national income tax and a national sales tax is just excessive.

Capital gains tax 25% short term, 20% long term

Discourages investment - I'm not quite sure why this is seen a a good thing.

90% inheritance tax up to $5 million

Not sure why people passing assets to their children is seen as a bad thing. I suppose jealousy would be the obvious answer, but since so many people think this is a wonderful idea, maybe you can offer some reasons.

Seizure of all assets over $5 million

There's absolutely nothing to justify this, other than jealousy and spite.

Investment in nuclear power

Wonderful idea

electrify and expand railroads

Also a great idea

Replace all vehicles with hybrids

How? Outlaw non-hybrids? What about sub-compacts that get better gas mileage than hybrids? Are those outlawed as well?

Single-payer health insurance

Good idea, but completely unworkable, unless she's proposing nationalizing or outlawing insurance companies, that is.

Guarantee housing and food for every American citizen

We already have public housing and food stamps. There's a thread about the Illinois governor that talks about how people treat public housing. I see no reason to believe they'll treat cheap housing they get through housing credits any better than the free housing they currently get - it'll take less than a decade and wherever the poorest of the poor live will turn to shit. What a paradise...

By the way, assuming you give all adult Americans making less than $226K six grand a year for food and housing, that's going to cost about $1.1 Trillion, about a third of the current budget I believe.

Free public universities

good idea - going to be awfully expensive, however. Have you thought about how you're going to pay for it all?

Guaranteed retirement (Social Security, I assume)

Pretty sure we already have this. It also costs a lot of money, and will be bankrupt in about 20-30 years, maybe sooner.

Free public transit

In Seattle, bums already ride public transit for free. They sleep, piss, and shit on the buses, and deter working people from taking them if they have another option. People don't value things that are free - what makes you think it'll be any different in your utopia?

4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches)

Fine by me. I've seen reports that the Krauts are much more productive than Americans are, despite working considerably less, so this is actually a good, workable idea.

Minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment. Maternity leave would 60 days before birth, 16 months afterward at 80% for three months and 60% for the next 13, and the father would get 3-months post birth at 60% wages.

Two months of vacation after five years of employment, huh? wow... you're awfully generous with other people's money.

That's really what it gets down to for me - cost. Have you given any thought to how much your plans will cost and how you'll pay for them?

EDIT: One other thing I just thought of. Where are states, counties, and municipalities going to get their money? You're already taxing the fuck out of people at the national level. Most states either have income or sales taxes, but since people are already being bled dry where is that money going to come from?

[Big Phil]

While we're at it, let's take a quick back of the envelope example of just how badly wealth seizure will fuck over the economy.

Microsoft currently employs ~90,000 people in 105 countries. Assuming each of those people has an average annual income of $60,000, that's $5.4 Billion each year pumped into the global economy in direct salaries. That doesn't include vendors, suppliers, contractors, and others who work with or for Microsoft, or sell to them, who probably account for several hundred thousand more jobs (possibly millions of jobs).

Now, according to Duchess no one needs more than $100 million, right? So let's say that back in the late 80's Bill Gates was relieved of all his excess cash and stock, after all, he doesn't NEED more than $100 million. Let's say we make a windfall $10 Billion off of Bill (I'm guessing here). So, Bill says fuck that and retires. Microsoft never grows into the behemoth it is today. What is the effect on the economy.

Well for one thing, Microsoft doesn't currently employ 90,000 people. Maybe it only employs 5,000. That's 85,000 jobs never created over the past 20 years x $60,000 average annual salary. That's $100 Billion in salary that never got created, that never happened. So the simple math is $10 Billion income - $100 Billion lost opportunity = -$90 Billion. One single example, Microsoft, costs the economy $90 Billion over the past 20 years, in pure salary. Since Microsoft's annual revenues are in the realm of $60 Billion, that number is clearly low.

And that, folks, is just one example of how badly Duchess' wealth redistribution plan fucks over the economy and the world. All because she doesn't think people need more than $100 million.

By the way, if anyone has time or the inclination, feel free to improve on my calculations. They were done in five minutes and are pure guesses. I suspect a much better picture could be drawn of Microsoft's contribution to the global economy, and I have no doubt the number would be far larger than $100 Billion over 20 years. And it would all be gone in Duchess' utopia.

[K. A. Pital]

Not sure why people passing assets to their children is seen as a bad thing.

Because yuppie fucktards who become zillionaires by right of birth without sweating a single inch develop a callous attitude towards the society, are unqualified to make sound decisions and often waste monetary resources of a society on unproductive, excessive luxuries? Because this forms a new aristocratic class which concentrates wealth by right of birth? Are those reasons not sound enough to discourage this?

There's absolutely nothing to justify this

There's absolutely nothing to justify having those assets either. Everything is produced by society, and not by the individual in question. If his personal wealth is not allowed to balloon, he might look towards other types of raising his social status than just accumulating wealth i.e. hoarding.

Good idea, but completely unworkable

Works for everyone; yeah, it would require to crush some parts of US insurance industry and maybe trample on the pharmaceutic industry, but it does work.

...good idea - going to be awfully expensive, however.

Taxation will make higher education accessible by virtue of exam grades not ability to pay - like some First World and most Second World nations do.

People don't value things that are free - what makes you think it'll be any different in your utopia?

I didn't see people pissing and shitting in buses here, even though the pay was so small it could almost be considered "free", especially in Soviet times. It's not a utopia for people to treat public transport well if they actively utilize it for their daily needs. The bums are asocial elements who fell out of a produtive process; they suffer cultural degradation. Normal people will not routinely shit in buses, if that's what you imply.

Where are states, counties, and municipalities going to get their money?

From the top. Of course, it's harder since the USA is a federalistic nation not a unitarian one...

So, Bill says fuck that and retires. Microsoft never grows into the behemoth it is today. What is the effect on the economy.

And what is the net effect on the economy? What happened to Microsoft all of a sudden? Was it nationalized? no? I mean, the demand for computerization never went away. Other agents will either replace Microsoft (and who is to say that it won't be a better scenario, you?), or the government will take over Microsoft. In any case, no niche stays void.

Since Microsoft's annual revenues are in the realm of $60 Billion, that number is clearly low.

Yeah, but we're looking at a company which utterly crushed other startups to dominate the entire market; essentially a glorified monopoly. So Microsoft gets the short end of the stick; and say 100 Red Hats are created in it's place, all generating the same $60 billion. Where's the problem? Or USA-Soft is created, generating $60 billion again. And actually considering the monopolistic nature of Microsoft and the total irrelevance, at this stage, whether it's government owned or private, it would rise all the same.

And it would all be gone in Duchess' utopia.

Of course, if you just say it's "gone" without realizing that something will exist in it's place. The jobs which are "created" by one company are simultaneously personnel denied to another sector of the same economy, so another company does not expand to the level it possibly could. You are saying as if the jobs are in vacuum, and it's not a zero-sum-game in employment - when in fact it is, a fixed number of people are rising to employment age yearly and the pool is stable and not changing because of companies; action, it's a natural demographic constraint.

If the unemployment rate is say 3% now and 3% in a putative alternative economy with similar demographic growth, that means the same number of jobs were created.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For the record, Bilbo, though I may have indeed said something like that about Northern Ireland, oh, back in 2002 or 2003, it was wrong, incorrect, and indeed foolish (and the only thing odder than trying to disprove one argument by mentioning another, unrelated one, is an unrelated one from six years ago when the person in question has vastly changed in outlook and ideology over that period!). Implementing a welfare state in the United States is none of those things, and it really seems the only idea people truly think unacceptable is wealth seizure, to which I shall answer the only serious argument posed, rather than "rar I can't be a billionaire now!", which was kindly offered by the Whaler, whom I do have to respect for often offering serious critiques of what I say, sometime, oh, later today as it's now after midnight. Assuming I don't kill myself by accident trying to drive home tomorrow, though at least the car has studded tires on it now.

[Big Phil]

Not sure why people passing assets to their children is seen as a bad thing.

Because yuppie fucktards who become zillionaires by right of birth without sweating a single inch develop a callous attitude towards the society, are unqualified to make sound decisions and often waste monetary resources of a society on unproductive, excessive luxuries? Because this forms a new aristocratic class which concentrates wealth by right of birth? Are those reasons not sound enough to discourage this?

1. It's their parents money, not yours and not the government's. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money.
2. Again, other than jealousy, there's no real reason here. Can you actually measure the level of harm that inheritance does to society, or is this just about envy? Frankly I see more harm done because of middle-class kids who get nice cars on their 16th birthdays than because of rich kids who inherit unearned wealth.

There's absolutely nothing to justify this

There's absolutely nothing to justify having those assets either. Everything is produced by society, and not by the individual in question. If his personal wealth is not allowed to balloon, he might look towards other types of raising his social status than just accumulating wealth i.e. hoarding.

I assume you're referring to seizure of assets? How can you say there's nothing to justify having those assets? In the example of Bill Gates, he founded a company, that company made it big, he was the lucky recipient. You still haven't justified why it's "right" to take money away from Bill Gates and "wrong" for him to make that money.
I already offered an example of why seizing assets is wrong. I'll even go one step further. Without Bill Gates, you wouldn't have the Gates Foundation. That's billions of dollars in philanthropy that wouldn't exist.

Good idea, but completely unworkable

Works for everyone; yeah, it would require to crush some parts of US insurance industry and maybe trample on the pharmaceutic industry, but it does work.

And puts how many millions out of work? Can you show me how the cost and net benefit to society exceed the economic devastation such a plan would cause?

...good idea - going to be awfully expensive, however.

Taxation will make higher education accessible by virtue of exam grades not ability to pay - like some First World and most Second World nations do.

Have you or Duchess actually calculated the tax revenues you'll tax in and compared those to the costs of all of these services you're going to offer?

People don't value things that are free - what makes you think it'll be any different in your utopia?

I didn't see people pissing and shitting in buses here, even though the pay was so small it could almost be considered "free", especially in Soviet times. It's not a utopia for people to treat public transport well if they actively utilize it for their daily needs. The bums are asocial elements who fell out of a produtive process; they suffer cultural degradation. Normal people will not routinely shit in buses, if that's what you imply.

I'm not implying that. I'm saying the current situation is that bums and poor people take the bus, and middle-class folks drive (in their hybrids, in this utopia). New York and other east coast cities are different, but that's how it is here on the Left Coast. And there is a difference between paying for public transit, even if it's a nominal fee ($1 each way or whatever it might be), and free public transit. Most transit is currently not free, but the one example I can think of where it is (Seattle) has produced some really foul results.

Where are states, counties, and municipalities going to get their money?

From the top. Of course, it's harder since the USA is a federalistic nation not a unitarian one...

And more evidence why it's unworkable. As a federal republic, each state is it's own mini-country, and there are limits on federal power, set by the Constitution and the courts. So a massive plan such as that Duchess proposes would require major changes in the political structure, which are (at the least) unlikely.

So, Bill says fuck that and retires. Microsoft never grows into the behemoth it is today. What is the effect on the economy.

And what is the net effect on the economy? What happened to Microsoft all of a sudden? Was it nationalized? no? I mean, the demand for computerization never went away. Other agents will either replace Microsoft (and who is to say that it won't be a better scenario, you?), or the government will take over Microsoft. In any case, no niche stays void.

Government nationalizes private corporations - sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Weren't people shrieking at me just a few pages ago that Duchess wasn't proposing communism?

In any case, what do you think happens to the economy and society when every major corporation goes away to be replaced by cottage industries or nationalized corporations? Google never would have started, Yahoo! never would have started, Boeing, Ford, DuPont, General Mills, etc. would be gone or nationalized (and we all know government run companies sure are profitable and efficient ), and only small private companies would be left.

I'd sure like to see an argument that we'd be in a better place today with lots of little companies than with large multi-national corporations. While it might seem like paradise to have the local bank (no Bank of America), the local hardware store (boo Home Depot/Lowe's), the local supermarket (Safeway = bad), the local gas station (down with Texaco and Chevron), and the local department store (bye bye Macy's), costs are going to go up significantly as all of these little companies aren't going to have the leverage to buy in mass quantities or ship things nationally or internationally. Farewell UPS and FedEx, goodbye Microsoft/IBM/Apple/Sony and other large corporations that have helped establish standards.

Good luck getting checks cashed out of town too. Remember Doc Hollywood, where people in that shit town wouldn't take credit cards or out of town checks? That actually happens in places TODAY, and used to happen a lot more. Cash only, in other words. So forget pulling cash out of an ATM in NY if you're from Texas...

Would mobile phones even have been invented in such a society? Since the profit motive was taken away, would Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, AT&T and other companies even have bothered?

Since Microsoft's annual revenues are in the realm of $60 Billion, that number is clearly low.

Yeah, but we're looking at a company which utterly crushed other startups to dominate the entire market; essentially a glorified monopoly. So Microsoft gets the short end of the stick; and say 100 Red Hats are created in it's place, all generating the same $60 billion. Where's the problem? Or USA-Soft is created, generating $60 billion again. And actually considering the monopolistic nature of Microsoft and the total irrelevance, at this stage, whether it's government owned or private, it would rise all the same.

I thought you might go there - so because Microsoft engages in shady business practices and is a quasi-monopoly, anything bad that could happen to it is justified? Frankly, you could replace Microsoft with Costco or Apple, both companies that have sterling reputations, and the result would be the same. Hundreds of thousands of jobs NOT created because there's no profit motive to do so.

Can you point to a few examples of nationalized companies innovating the same way Microsoft, Google, Apple, Sony, Nokia, etc., do? Where was the innovation and entrepreneurship in the USSR?

And it would all be gone in Duchess' utopia.

Of course, if you just say it's "gone" without realizing that something will exist in it's place. The jobs which are "created" by one company are simultaneously personnel denied to another sector of the same economy, so another company does not expand to the level it possibly could. You are saying as if the jobs are in vacuum, and it's not a zero-sum-game in employment - when in fact it is, a fixed number of people are rising to employment age yearly and the pool is stable and not changing because of companies; action, it's a natural demographic constraint.

If the unemployment rate is say 3% now and 3% in a putative alternative economy with similar demographic growth, that means the same number of jobs were created.

And what kinds of jobs would replace the high-paying, high-tech jobs? Without corporations like Boeing, Microsoft, Ford, Intel, etc., who is going to employee all of these college graduates this society is going to pump out?

Unemployment is currently ~7% in the USA, and I suspect would at least double under Duchess' utopia (maybe triple or quadruple - it's hard to say what would happen when all of these major corporations were bankrupted or nationalized), until the bloated, inefficient, poorly run national corporations started giving people dead-end jobs just to keep them employed. And then we have the USSR, which as we all know was filled with shiny happy communists all giving 100% for mother Russia.

[D.Turtle]

Sanchez, you are apparently equating the banning of people owning more than $100 Million with the banning of corporations of that size.

It is a huge difference.

You could simply implement a law that bans companies of a certain size from being owned by a single individual. Then it could for example be owned by a (larger) group of individuals, until you get to the normal stock corporation. Bill Gates could still lead his company - he just wouldn't own all of it, but would be paid a normal wage. Multi-National corporations would still exist.

Oh, and I addressed many of your points in a post I made on page 3 - you might have missed it. Short summary: Germany has universal healthcare, essentially free education, a 16% national sales tax, a minimum of 24 paid vacation days for all jobs, unlimited paid sick leave for all jobs, and so on. Germany is doing quite well (in comparison to the US).

[K. A. Pital]

Can you actually measure the level of harm that inheritance does to society

$15 million dance party - especially when done say amidst an economic crisis - is $15 million worth of damage to society. And that's just a small example of what those people do routinely. Collectively, they cause yet more damage.

How can you say there's nothing to justify having those assets?

Unless you have a belief that property rights are absolute instead of being granted and taken by society at large, there's nothing that justifies the ownership of assets by that individual.

I'll even go one step further. Without Bill Gates, you wouldn't have the Gates Foundation. That's billions of dollars in philanthropy that wouldn't exist.

Please. A charity which is a miserable drop compared to what tax redistributions programs funnel to the poorer people yearly. "Charity" has no value as such; a putative greater taxation could not only potentially cover the value of charity tenfold - or indeed any amount of time, but would not be dependent on the whims of the philantrope who in no ways is obliged to society, to even give any money.

Can you show me how the cost and net benefit to society exceed the economic devastation such a plan would cause?

Pretty easy to calculate actually. The US spends on the average several thousand more per capita for healthcare as it stands now; the privatized system is terrifically inefficient. If the net losses to workers in other sectors than insurance do not exceed the amount of savings, then the measure is validated. What of the insurance companies themselves, you ask? Fuck the leeches, say I.

Have you or Duchess actually calculated the tax revenues you'll tax in and compared those to the costs of all of these services you're going to offer?

I presume such tax collections are feasible considering they are feasible in reality by other nationstates; I have not necessarily calculated it for the USA. But indeed, before implementing any measures, and such drastic ones most of all, one needs to do a thorough calculation beforehand.

So a massive plan such as that Duchess proposes would require major changes in the political structure, which are (at the least) unlikely.

Or maybe it would require changes to her plan. I never implied I support it as some sort of holy screed. It's a general framework to push off from; I see which goals she wants to achieve - perhaps there are better economic levers to do it; if so, the task of a scientist is to find them without abandoning the main goal of social engineering.

Government nationalizes private corporations - sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

Wow, the US must be communist - it nationalized large private corporations just beforehand. However, it remains just every bit violently ultracapitalist as before. Nationalizations are not an indication of ZOMG TEH COMMUNISM unless they are total. And believe me, there are quite a few examples where exceptionally large structures are either nationalized to the public good, or broken up by anti-monopoly commitees - but not in America, I guess.

I'd sure like to see an argument that we'd be in a better place today with lots of little companies than with large multi-national corporations.

Why can't you have large government corporations and small little companies in private hands? That's not "communist". You can call that a form of socialism if you want, but it is hardly something terribly unfeasible. Quite a few nationstates have or had large companies under the government whilst allowing smaller private ventures to exist, and they aren't exactly the hellholes of the world.

Would mobile phones even have been invented in such a society?

Even the USSR managed to invent and build cellphones, albeit for military applications. All you need is a thrust to apply the technology to the civilian market; which small business has in plenty, since - hwoops! - the technology is already created by the government.

Can you point to a few examples of nationalized companies innovating the same way Microsoft, Google, Apple, Sony, Nokia, etc., do? Where was the innovation and entrepreneurship in the USSR?

I can point to examples of technologies developed by the government. Bringing them to the market can be done by small and large companies alike.

Bleh, no time now - but I'll expand.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

1. It's their parents money, not yours and not the government's. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money.
2. Again, other than jealousy, there's no real reason here. Can you actually measure the level of harm that inheritance does to society, or is this just about envy? Frankly I see more harm done because of middle-class kids who get nice cars on their 16th birthdays than because of rich kids who inherit unearned wealth.

Would you like to pay a visit to Thailand to check out why this is bad? Their entire malaise right now is because there exist an oligarchy whereby the young inherit wealth and the poor remain poor. Since when should the rich gain a monopoly on wealth? Since when do the rich have a right to wealth while people eat dirt and die on the streets?

[Big Phil]

Can you actually measure the level of harm that inheritance does to society

$15 million dance party - especially when done say amidst an economic crisis - is $15 million worth of damage to society. And that's just a small example of what those people do routinely. Collectively, they cause yet more damage.

I don't see the harm. That's $15 million pumped into the economy, rather than just sat on.

How can you say there's nothing to justify having those assets?

Unless you have a belief that property rights are absolute instead of being granted and taken by society at large, there's nothing that justifies the ownership of assets by that individual.

While I don't believe property rights are absolute, neither do I believe the "government" has a right to just take people's money "for the greater good."

I'll even go one step further. Without Bill Gates, you wouldn't have the Gates Foundation. That's billions of dollars in philanthropy that wouldn't exist.

Please. A charity which is a miserable drop compared to what tax redistributions programs funnel to the poorer people yearly. "Charity" has no value as such; a putative greater taxation could not only potentially cover the value of charity tenfold - or indeed any amount of time, but would not be dependent on the whims of the philantrope who in no ways is obliged to society, to even give any money.

Instead that money should be given to a massive, bloated, inefficient government to waste. The Gates Foundation supports highly effective micro-loans in developing nations. Governments build decrepit, ready to be torn down, housing projects. Your disdain for philanthropy is misplaced, particularly since business and charitable organizations are far more effective at dealing with societal issues such as poverty and homelessness than government.

Can you show me how the cost and net benefit to society exceed the economic devastation such a plan would cause?

Pretty easy to calculate actually. The US spends on the average several thousand more per capita for healthcare as it stands now; the privatized system is terrifically inefficient. If the net losses to workers in other sectors than insurance do not exceed the amount of savings, then the measure is validated. What of the insurance companies themselves, you ask? Fuck the leeches, say I.

If it's easy, then do us all a favor and do the calculations. Then it's not about your opinion vs. my opinion, but hard numbers.

Have you or Duchess actually calculated the tax revenues you'll tax in and compared those to the costs of all of these services you're going to offer?

I presume such tax collections are feasible considering they are feasible in reality by other nationstates; I have not necessarily calculated it for the USA. But indeed, before implementing any measures, and such drastic ones most of all, one needs to do a thorough calculation beforehand.

Yup

Government nationalizes private corporations - sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

Wow, the US must be communist - it nationalized large private corporations just beforehand. However, it remains just every bit violently ultracapitalist as before. Nationalizations are not an indication of ZOMG TEH COMMUNISM unless they are total. And believe me, there are quite a few examples where exceptionally large structures are either nationalized to the public good, or broken up by anti-monopoly commitees - but not in America, I guess.

Can you provide examples?

I'd sure like to see an argument that we'd be in a better place today with lots of little companies than with large multi-national corporations.

Why can't you have large government corporations and small little companies in private hands? That's not "communist". You can call that a form of socialism if you want, but it is hardly something terribly unfeasible. Quite a few nationstates have or had large companies under the government whilst allowing smaller private ventures to exist, and they aren't exactly the hellholes of the world.

Why is a government-run corporation better than a privately run corporation? You seem to be assuming that a government run organization will function better than a privately held company, but there are lots and lots of examples where that's simply not true. Shipping for example - UPS and FedEx are far superior the the US Postal Service, although since USPS is heavily subsidized it is substantially cheaper. If all three had to operate without subsidies, USPS would die on the vine.

Would mobile phones even have been invented in such a society?

Even the USSR managed to invent and build cellphones, albeit for military applications. All you need is a thrust to apply the technology to the civilian market; which small business has in plenty, since - hwoops! - the technology is already created by the government.

How many Soviet computer manufacturers were selling PCs in the mid-80's? What about Soviet auto manufacturers - how awesome were the cars they were building? They were safe, comfortable, and in high demand on the export market, weren't they?

Can you point to a few examples of nationalized companies innovating the same way Microsoft, Google, Apple, Sony, Nokia, etc., do? Where was the innovation and entrepreneurship in the USSR?

I can point to examples of technologies developed by the government. Bringing them to the market can be done by small and large companies alike.

Bleh, no time now - but I'll expand.

Except that there won't be any large private companies to innovate and drive new ideas. Using the example of the USPS, they don't innovate with new tracking systems or new shipping plans. They respond to what UPS and FedEx do.

Look at Bell Systems in the US. Although privately held, they were as close to a nationalized company as you can come, with the blessing of the government on their monopoly. And until 1984 we had to deal with spotty telephone service and no alternatives. While you can argue about the success of its descendants, you can't argue that increased options isn't a good thing. If I don't like AT&T's service, I can switch to Qwest, or get rid of my land line altogether and go purely mobile.

Would you like to pay a visit to Thailand to check out why this is bad? Their entire malaise right now is because there exist an oligarchy whereby the young inherit wealth and the poor remain poor. Since when should the rich gain a monopoly on wealth? Since when do the rich have a right to wealth while people eat dirt and die on the streets?

Wow, an apples to oranges comparison! You totally convinced me! Even though the US is completely different from Thailand culturally, economically, etc. Maybe I should point to the example of Britain, where the oligarchy inherits wealth, and yet that country manages to do fairly well.

[Big Phil]

Sanchez, you are apparently equating the banning of people owning more than $100 Million with the banning of corporations of that size.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that individuals are driven by greed, and if you make greed illegal, they won't work past a certain point.

You could simply implement a law that bans companies of a certain size from being owned by a single individual. Then it could for example be owned by a (larger) group of individuals, until you get to the normal stock corporation. Bill Gates could still lead his company - he just wouldn't own all of it, but would be paid a normal wage. Multi-National corporations would still exist.

Very few companies are owned by a single individual. Bill Gates never owned more than 10% of Microsoft, and yet he was still worth over $100 Billion at one point. Furthermore, once he hit the wealth cap, why would he bother to work anymore? He doesn't benefit from working; why not retire and sit on his ass for the rest of his life?

Oh, and I addressed many of your points in a post I made on page 3 - you might have missed it. Short summary: Germany has universal healthcare, essentially free education, a 16% national sales tax, a minimum of 24 paid vacation days for all jobs, unlimited paid sick leave for all jobs, and so on. Germany is doing quite well (in comparison to the US).

Sure - but Germany built itself up from the rubble after WWII. It started from essentially NOTHING. In the US, you'd be displacing or overhauling massive institutions that have been around for decades, if not longer. In any case, universal healthcare, free education, a month of vacation, and similar things are the easy part, if you can pay for it. It's Duchess' desired destruction of the free market that will have more serious consequences.

[Illuminatus Primus]

1. It's their parents money, not yours and not the government's. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money.

This reasoning is bullshit. It is just as much the government's as any other money taken as tax. This argument cannot permit the existence of any inheritance tax, but I am sure you are not opposed to all taxes and not all inheritance tax, so its bullshit. You must explain why the degree of her tax is unacceptable, rather than attacking the conceptual basis of the tax in principle.

2. Again, other than jealousy, there's no real reason here. Can you actually measure the level of harm that inheritance does to society, or is this just about envy? Frankly I see more harm done because of middle-class kids who get nice cars on their 16th birthdays than because of rich kids who inherit unearned wealth.

I don't even know how to respond to this bullshit. You claiming the celebrity culture of rich heirs and socialites does not promote shitty worldviews and value systems? Can you not understand that plutocratic tendencies increased in light of Reaganomics and a sincerely democratic society must oppose hereditary reserves of power and formation of insulated aristocracy whereever possible? There is an obvious societal interest in preventing aristocracy.

I assume you're referring to seizure of assets? How can you say there's nothing to justify having those assets? In the example of Bill Gates, he founded a company, that company made it big, he was the lucky recipient. You still haven't justified why it's "right" to take money away from Bill Gates and "wrong" for him to make that money.

Its right for the same reason as any other existing tax. Its not wrong for him to make it, there's just major societal interests which vastly exceed the harm done because people cannot be multi-billionaires.

I already offered an example of why seizing assets is wrong. I'll even go one step further. Without Bill Gates, you wouldn't have the Gates Foundation. That's billions of dollars in philanthropy that wouldn't exist.

Philanthropy and charity is less efficient and equitably distributed than government programs funded by tax. People give selectively, and often to religious or particular organizations regardless of societal need and public interest.

And puts how many millions out of work? Can you show me how the cost and net benefit to society exceed the economic devastation such a plan would cause?

So we should prop up unproductive industries by allowing the current health care regime to remain? This is exactly like the argument to keep the current tax structure because (heaven forbid) the tax advisory and law industry would collapse.

I'm not implying that. I'm saying the current situation is that bums and poor people take the bus, and middle-class folks drive (in their hybrids, in this utopia). New York and other east coast cities are different, but that's how it is here on the Left Coast. And there is a difference between paying for public transit, even if it's a nominal fee ($1 each way or whatever it might be), and free public transit. Most transit is currently not free, but the one example I can think of where it is (Seattle) has produced some really foul results.

Its called law enforcement. Provide more social services and keep the bums from destroying public property.

And more evidence why it's unworkable. As a federal republic, each state is it's own mini-country, and there are limits on federal power, set by the Constitution and the courts. So a massive plan such as that Duchess proposes would require major changes in the political structure, which are (at the least) unlikely.

Specifically state which proposal is inadmissible under constitutional law. I'm sick of your handwaving that things "must" be unworkable without specific examples. How does thing y violate the current understanding of constitutional law?

Government nationalizes private corporations - sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Weren't people shrieking at me just a few pages ago that Duchess wasn't proposing communism?

It just means that Gates has to sell some of his shares once they become worth hundreds of millions. It doesn't mean the government owns Microsoft. And it won't mean Microsoft suddenly became an unworthy investment.

In any case, what do you think happens to the economy and society when every major corporation goes away to be replaced by cottage industries or nationalized corporations? Google never would have started, Yahoo! never would have started, Boeing, Ford, DuPont, General Mills, etc. would be gone or nationalized (and we all know government run companies sure are profitable and efficient ), and only small private companies would be left.

I'd sure like to see an argument that we'd be in a better place today with lots of little companies than with large multi-national corporations. While it might seem like paradise to have the local bank (no Bank of America), the local hardware store (boo Home Depot/Lowe's), the local supermarket (Safeway = bad), the local gas station (down with Texaco and Chevron), and the local department store (bye bye Macy's), costs are going to go up significantly as all of these little companies aren't going to have the leverage to buy in mass quantities or ship things nationally or internationally. Farewell UPS and FedEx, goodbye Microsoft/IBM/Apple/Sony and other large corporations that have helped establish standards.

Good luck getting checks cashed out of town too. Remember Doc Hollywood, where people in that shit town wouldn't take credit cards or out of town checks? That actually happens in places TODAY, and used to happen a lot more. Cash only, in other words. So forget pulling cash out of an ATM in NY if you're from Texas...

Would mobile phones even have been invented in such a society? Since the profit motive was taken away, would Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, AT&T and other companies even have bothered?

What the fuck are you talking about? Just because single people could not own billions of dollars of stock does not mean successful corporations are not possible.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Alright, Sanchez, the answer to your complain is a straightforward one.

In my original post, you didn't seem to notice that I'd stated that I was going, to, quote: "To avoid wealth seizure the very rich can divert funds into registered charities (including ones they form, but they must be registered and carefully regulated by the government only)."


So I don't think you really have an argument--the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would simply still exist, and would contain all but (IIRC they have one child) 250 million of their assets, since Bill could freely transfer 100 million to Melinda and so on. 250 million which because it was constantly earning more money from mostly being wrapped up in investments, would never decrease, even as most of the earned money was just automatically transferred to their charitable foundation.

And of course corporations worth more than 100 million would exist; that's obvious. Just not huge companies privately held by a single person, though they could be privately held by a single family, even, at a huge size.

Anyway, I would not have proposed this a hundred years ago, when the economy was different; it might have prevented the Rockefellers, et. al., from making America an Industrial society, but it will not hurt America now that America is already an industrial society. Something may work great now but not in the past, you know, or vice-versa. Try to implement modern democracy in Sumeria in 3,000 BCE...

As for the public transit note, I find Seattle's to be very clean, pleasant, and efficient, same with the Kitsap peninsula. Sometimes there's smelly people, but I've never noticed anything worse, and I used to take the bus to commute into Georgetown, and I don't think there's a more run-down area of the city than that.