A major problem with Capitalism, that no one wants to talk about - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14895729


Now, one of the main principles of thought is that the harder you think, the more problems you get.

And the problem is, some people are thinking way more than others. And those people take advantage of those of us who aren't thinking the same thoughts.

How is that fair? How is it fair that say someone like me, for example, who isn't very thoughtful, can't figure out how to think critically, but someone else who was born with critical thinking skills that I don't have can use his brain to think things? How is it fair that I can struggle and think really damn hard every damn day without anything to show for it, whereas someone who is a genius can think way more effectively with way less effort? Does he really deserve to have more thoughts than me?

He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Doesn't have a point of view
Knows not where he's going to
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere man please listen
You don't know what you're missing
Nowhere man, The world is at your command


:lol:


/thread
#14895740
Agent Steel wrote:Now, one of the main principles of capitalism is that the harder you work, the more you get.

Well I'm sorry but that's simply not the case. It's more about how SMART you work, not how hard you work.

And the problem is, some people are way smarter than others. And those people take advantageous of those of us who aren't as smart.

How is that fair? How is it fair that say someone like me, for example, who isn't very bright, can't figure out how to make money, but someone else who was born with skills that I don't have (such as intelligence) can use his brain to get rich? How is it fair that I can struggle and work really damn hard every damn day without anything to show for it, whereas someone who is a genius can work way more effectively with way less effort? Does he really deserve to have more than me?


I am sorry to say that you have the wrong impressions about 'capitalism', that much is clear because you do not understand it, you will not draw a proper conclusion about it.

In the scheme of things, you may want to know where you stand in relation to others in the system, then you may begin to know why your youthful flame of optimism has dimmed somewhat.

Karl MARX well understood the system, it's also stated in the 'Tory' institutional hymn ,"All things bright & beautiful" by C.F Alexander.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

It's about 'Class' or lack of it, depending on which side of the fence it is that you stand.

In fact the above excerpt doesn't describe capitalism's inevitable direction of wealth accumulating in the hands of the few.

That happens through the hate of the workers, the poor, the disabled, the sick, the aged & the young by the Tories.

They have a, "Are they one of us, or one of them" attitude to people & this is expressed through their political policies in government.
The 'welfare reforms', AKA 'Austerity' is a viscous attack against the above groups who are not generally sympathetic to the Tories.
There is a direct fiscal connection between the above policy & tax cuts favouring the wealthy- better off in this country.

It is that the wealthy-better off are the recipients of the money extricated by the Tory government's 'welfare reforms'..

The 'power' wielded by the Tory government, lies NOT in 10 Downing Street, but next door at number 11.

It is there that the axe is wielded against those that perceive the system has been unfair to them, a feeling that is more widespread than believed, that's why CORBYN may well be the beneficiary of the people's anger.

Under 'capitalism' wealth is concentrated-NOT-distributed, that's why we democratically elect governments, in the often mistaken belief that 'Socialist' one's would spread the gruel more evenly.

You see, EVERY SINGLE PENNY THAT THE WEALTHY OR BETTER OFF ENJOY,HAS COME FROM THE POCKETS OF THOSE LESS WELL-OFF THAN THEMSELVES & UNFAIR,SPITEFUL 'TORY' GOVERNMENT'S REWARD THE RICH & PUNISH THE POOR THROUGH THE SYSTEM OF TAXATION.

The rich or better-off can ALWAYS pay the bills, after all, they are paying them with YOUR MONEY, they set the prices in order that they do get your money & they influence 'Tory' & 'Labour' government's in order to perpetually keep you in your place, hence the meaning within the hymn above.
#14895750
Drlee wrote:How wrong can one get?


You tell me -

an unavoidable part of the high cost of U.S. health care is how much we pay doctors — twice as much on average as physicians in other wealthy countries. Because our doctors are paid, on average, more than $250,000 a year (even after malpractice insurance and other expenses), and more than 900,000 doctors in the country, that means we pay an extra $100 billion a year in doctor salaries. That works out to more than $700 per U.S. household per year. We can think of this as a kind of doctors’ tax.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2 ... ies-000557


The last time the OECD looked at this (PDF), they found that, adjusted for local purchasing power, America has the highest-paid general practitioners in the world. And our specialists make more than specialists in every other country except the Netherlands. What’s even more striking, as the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff observed last week, these highly paid doctors don’t buy us more doctors’ visits. Canada has about 25 percent more doctors’ consultations per capita than we do, and the average rich country has 50 percent more. This doctor compensation gap is hardly the only issue in overpriced American health care—overpriced medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, prescription drugs, and administrative overhead are all problems—but it’s a huge deal.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... rance.html


Primary care doctors in the United States, do tend to earn a lot more than their counterparts abroad. One 2011 study, which looked at doctor salaries from 2008, found that the average primary care doctor in France earns about $95,000, compared to the $186,000 that physicians net in the United States.
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/8/5692058/wh ... -one-chart


Drlee wrote:American GPs earn a little more than their OECD peers.


Image

Not necessarily true. There is a reason students come here from all over the world to be educated. You would have to cherry pick specialties to make this comparison work. Needless to say, if I were to need surgery and cost was not a factor, I would pick from a list of good US hospitals. If cost were not a factor I would choose cancer treatment in the US over that anywhere in the world.


Unfortunately, all this expense is not producing significantly better health care outcomes. While the United States undoubtedly leads the world in medical innovations and cutting edge care for uncommon conditions, gross measures of health care outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality (which, it’s true, are heavily influenced by lifestyle, demographic, cultural, and genetic factors independent of the medical system) are below average for wealthy countries. By some measures, American health care practitioners work less hard than their peers in other countries. While other wealthy countries average just a little over three hospital staff per hospital bed, American hospitals have more than five people for each bed. The U.S. health care system may not be worse than those elsewhere—it does draw people from all over the world—but there’s no evidence the enormous labor costs are producing world-beating outcomes.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/americas- ... e-overpaid
#14895835
None of your sources are correct. No surprise there. Look at what they are. Give me a fucking break. Daily beast? :roll:

Besides. This poor journalism aside, the cost of physician salaries in the US represents less than 10% of health care costs. (This ignores the amortization of the cost of a physician's education.) If you cut physician pay by 20% you would reduce spending on health care less than 2%. The entire notion of cutting physician pay to somehow make health care more affordable is just stupid. Simply stupid.

Once Americans wake up to the fact that the money is going into the pockets of health care insurers and absurdly priced pharma companies they will give us the universal single payer insurance we ought to have. But oh no. Our corporate masters would never stand for that.

But I think I will just stop advocating for a sensible health care system. What do I care what you republican drones pay? I pay just over $120.00 a month for 100% paid health care. I pick my doctor. I do not have to get referrals to specialists. I can make my own appointments. I make no co-pays. The most expensive drug I could be given would cost me $40.00 for a three month supply. I do not pay for ambulances and if I need a hospital stay or nursing home care I pay nothing. Mental health is completely covered. Thanks guys. My health care makes my Canadian and British friends jealous. I even have dental insurance and tomorrow will pay nothing for my cleaning.

SO get your hands out of American health care. Let the free market handle it. It is be best in the world. I'm telling you. The best. Hail Trump and thank God he left my health care alone.
#14895923
Truth To Power wrote:No, privilege is.


Well that depends on who you ask I suppose. I personally don't have a problem with someone who earns their privileges like say the PM (despite their flaws). I do have a problem with monarchy's, lords and piers. And I am not ignorant on class divisions and social standing you get from them either. So if you are born into wealth, you have an upper hand on someone else. And that is classed as born privilege not privilege.

What you should be asking is how the person born into poverty had his access to opportunity forcibly removed and made into the private property of the privileged, whether the latter were born into it or not. Do you really think the worst thing about slavery is that some people are born into slave-owning families, or inherit slaves??


There is no point me asking that question. I know the answer. It is Capitalism. Yet there is more to the injustice in Capitalism than only property. You are just obsessed with that aspect of it though.

No, it's determined by what the privileged are not legally entitled to take from you.


Ultimately you choose the price you sell your Labour. However, like a commodity, the price you get for it is a supply demand issue.

Intelligence is not a skill. It is the capacity to understand. The US Army has determined that a person with an IQ of less than 83 -- about one standard deviation below the mean, accounting for roughly 15% of the population -- usually cannot be trained to safely do anything useful in the Army.


Intelligence is not a skill??? If you can learn I would say it was. We will have to disagree on that one.
#14895941
I never heard that Capitalism is about how hard you work.

It is about what industry you work in. If you work in the medical industry for example, you will do pretty well. It also depends on your role in that industry too.

Sadly, if you work in the music business, it's VERY hard to get noticed. Few people can achieve fame like Justin Timberlake or Prince. I know people who work 2 jobs, music is their night job or side job. It's nice that they can do something that they love. Doing something just for the money does not seem very pleasant to me. You have to enjoy what you do.
#14895970
Is it our knowledge of concepts and a fundamental misunderstanding of thought processes that enable us to abstract the problem & solution dialectic? Why is thought fragmented? Can thought examine the whole of BEING or is it bound to abstract fragments from the whole? When literacy invented the scientific method, was the scientist aware that science must be a reflection of the bits and parts that ultimately organize human communication? Was it a good idea (we know it's an idea, but how can it be good or bad?) for man to abstract nature, reorganize the environment, and invent purpose? Have we forgotten that we're nature because the nature of thought is fragmented?
MistyTiger wrote:I never heard that Capitalism is about how hard you work.
Capitalism is a concept. To understand a concept, one must investigate the process of abstraction, and one must examine the process of thought. After-all, what is capitalism? Capitalism is a system of thought, a system of organized action. See, the problem isn't capitalism, the problem is a pattern of perception which leads us to the behavior, because capitalism as a behavior is a side-effect of thought. How can one discuss any human pattern of perception without acknowledging that it's a side-effect of thought?

It is about what industry you work in. If you work in the medical industry for example, you will do pretty well. It also depends on your role in that industry too.
Ah, but your success is directly affected by the interconnectivity of human behavior. Demand and supply is an ecological rule, your role depends on the role of others. How can you have industry without people? Again, it boils down to thought. Industry (or any facet of 'capitalism') is an expression of thought (thought being a sign/symptom of consciousness). Now, isn't it curious how thoughts happen to run your organism? Your organism does its own thing, and your thought situates itself to comfort your biological vessel. Now then, are you in control of the thoughts you think?

Sadly, if you work in the music business, it's VERY hard to get noticed.
Ah, there it is... Get noticed, aka- do other thoughts recognize your thoughts. So we have one system of behavior (thought) moving throughout the space-time continuum. Your success is relative to the whole of BEING. Your wave pattern and identity is defined by others for you. After-all, how can you be who you think thus believe you are without others forming or confirming your identity?

Few people can achieve fame like Justin Timberlake or Prince. I know people who work 2 jobs, music is their night job or side job. It's nice that they can do something that they love. Doing something just for the money does not seem very pleasant to me. You have to enjoy what you do.
So it's true, your identity is abstracted from the whole. Your memories are reflections of experience, and the thoughts you think didn't originate in your head... The thoughts you think came from the other end of consciousness, which is to say, again, we have one system of behavior (thought), and you're instrumental in the music of the spheres. :music: Let's dance, baby!
#14896034
Drlee wrote:None of your sources are correct.

At least he provided sources. You have provided NOTHING but your own opinion.
No surprise there.

You deny without even bothering to provide any sourced data in response. No surprise there indeed...
Look at what they are. Give me a fucking break. Daily beast? :roll:

So why can't you provide a better one...?
Once Americans wake up to the fact that the money is going into the pockets of health care insurers and absurdly priced pharma companies they will give us the universal single payer insurance we ought to have. But oh no. Our corporate masters would never stand for that.

Insurance companies just take advantage of the fact that care is so over-priced that it is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. First the medico-rentier complex restricts supply to make medical care cost about five times as much as it would in a free market, then they tell you, "Pay for your own medical care, that's your responsibility in the free market!"
SO get your hands out of American health care. Let the free market handle it.

The free market can't supply health care efficiently because of market failure conditions, but the American medico-rentier complex is not remotely close to a free market. It's government-enforced monopoly and supply reduction to jack up prices through and through.
#14896053
Drlee wrote:None of your sources are correct. No surprise there. Look at what they are. Give me a fucking break. Daily beast? :roll:


:lol: Classic Drlee.

The articles are taking their information from the OECD and the Congressional Research Service
#14896075
B0ycey wrote:Well that depends on who you ask I suppose. I personally don't have a problem with someone who earns their privileges like say the PM (despite their flaws).

Some privileges are just and necessary, like the police officer's privilege of using force, but I am referring specifically to privileges that take the form of property -- land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, etc. -- as distinct from property that represents production.
So if you are born into wealth, you have an upper hand on someone else. And that is classed as born privilege not privilege.

Wealth per se is not privilege. There is a difference between having an upper hand on someone else because you have the power to give people things they would not otherwise have -- which power is conferred by wealth -- and having an upper hand on someone else because you have the power to TAKE things from people that they would otherwise have, which is conferred by privilege. Socialists resent the power of the wealthy to give just as much as they resent the power of the privileged to take. Capitalists defend the power of the privileged to take just as much as they defend the power of the wealthy to give. But the power of the wealthy to give people what they would not otherwise have does not harm anyone. It is only of benefit to them. The power of the privileged to take what people would otherwise have, by contrast, DOES harm them. It is unjust and destructive.
There is no point me asking that question. I know the answer. It is Capitalism.

But what is it about capitalism, specifically, that removes people's rights to liberty and makes them into the property of the privileged?
Yet there is more to the injustice in Capitalism than only property. You are just obsessed with that aspect of it though.

No, that is actually all there is to it. Like socialism, capitalism is defined by its ownership relations: property. ALL the injustice of capitalism derives from people's liberty rights being removed and made into the private property of the privileged: landowners, banksters, IP monopolists, etc. Without that forcible removal of people's liberty rights, they would have options, free access to economic opportunity, and employers would have no power to inflict injustice on them.
Ultimately you choose the price you sell your Labour. However, like a commodity, the price you get for it is a supply demand issue.

No, market wages are set by the Law of Rent: what labor can obtain on marginal land.
Intelligence is not a skill???

Right. It is the capacity to understand.
If you can learn I would say it was. We will have to disagree on that one.

It's pretty clear that one can learn to do a little better on IQ tests by practice, so that is a kind of skill. But it is not intelligence. Intelligence -- the ability to understand, to deal successfully with novelty and complexity -- does not appear to be trainable and must be considered an innate capacity rather than a learned skill.
#14896221
I won't respond to most of what you have written as is largely biased to your land privilege opinion. Most of it is correct but isn't the only underlining factors to Capitalism. Without going into deals as you will only spin it to be only associated with land rents again, I will say you are right but so am I.

Truth To Power wrote:No, market wages are set by the Law of Rent: what labor can obtain on marginal land.


This though is completely wrong and is just a bizarre way to bring in land rents into anything. Wages are a social contract. You decide what you are prepared to take for your labour and your employee decides what they are prepared to pay for it. If the employee has a vast supply of demand for that labour he can offer less. So this is the Doctor and the Footballer argument you here often in society. A doctor has a more useful job for society as a whole so should is more valued to the it but the Footballer gets paid more as his talents are in shorter demand for what his employees are prepared to pay. If the footballer isn't happy with what he is offered for his labour he moves club. The rent the club pays for the stadium has absolutely nothing to do with how much the club will pay for the players services btw.
#14896280
MistyTiger wrote:I never heard that Capitalism is about how hard you work.

It is about what industry you work in. If you work in the medical industry for example, you will do pretty well. It also depends on your role in that industry too.

Sadly, if you work in the music business, it's VERY hard to get noticed. Few people can achieve fame like Justin Timberlake or Prince. I know people who work 2 jobs, music is their night job or side job. It's nice that they can do something that they love. Doing something just for the money does not seem very pleasant to me. You have to enjoy what you do.


REPLY

At the end of the day, its about what value do you place, as an employer, on the labour that you employ.

This is highly subjective, is it the 'market' or is it about 'class'(group think?)privilege brought about by sectorial demarcation whose objective is to create protections for groups that have appointed themselves as 'professionals' ,in order to extract the maximum value from society.

Who places a higher or lower value on a particular group of workers?

It is not the 'market' per se, its political, as it's effects are seen in Europe through immigration, where it is used by the 'established' order to undermine the lot of everyone outside of their circle, even in the face of massive opposition to immigration made plain for all to see in the referendum.

In the UK, but also the USA, I suspect that, apart from election day, the business lobby has the ear of government 24/7 & the electors can whistle-in-the-wind as long as they like, because politicians are tone deaf to their pleas.

That's why 'democracy' is a sham.

I say that those self-appointed 'professional' groups, have embedded themselves into the economic & political model to such a degree that they determine the lot of everyone else.

The 'professionals' as they call themselves, are not given the privileges they enjoy, they have created that position for themselves & have got away with it for too long.
They may say that their training takes longer than for other forms of indenture, but that doesn't 'entitle' them to financial or political rewards either in an open market or in a 'democracy'.

Do you 'value' plumber, painter, mechanic, carpenter or other 'trade' from the point of view of a transaction, or by a 'professional', I know which I would choose, but whatever I choose to call upon, I want it at the lowest possible price, coupled with the best possible satisfaction in terms of quality.

NHS GP's are nothing more than desk monkeys, who act as political pawns because they are pretty useless as doctors.

The 'TORY' government stuffed the GP's pockets to the tune of £100K per annum, why?
They did so because they wanted to manipulate them without opposition to the cuts they intended to bring in.
They told GP's NOT to refer patients to hospitals(peer review-which they 'abandoned'-but is still being practiced by GP's individually)
The standard of practice by GP's in general is pathetic, half of them couldn't diagnose a cold, health care is rationed, but waiting times have increased & outcomes are poor.
I have used the NHS for all of it's existence, it doesn't belong to us the taxpayers, it's being 'outsourced'(privatised)to private contractors, it's being hollowed out.

The 'TORY'\'Labour' dictum, that, "Treatment will remain 'FREE' at the point of use" is a BIG LIE, because, if you cannot obtain 'ACCESS', thus NOT being able to obtain usage, it is no longer 'FREE'.

What really pisses me off, is the NHS consultants, who mix their own 'private' patients practice, using NHS beds, resources, time are coining it to the tune £MILLIONS per year, whilst NHS patients are denied ACCESS to treatment, but WORSE, is the FACT that these 'consultants' are dictating that 'LIFESTYLE' operations should be accepted as normal NHS treatment.

Is it right that TAXPAYERS money funds people's lifestyle changes, such as gender re-alignment, then reversals to them?

That is NOT what the NHS was created for, GET RID OF IT, NO HEALTHCARE IS BETTER THAN A HEALTH SYSTEM THAT IS A HYBRID POLITICALLY CORRECT PUBLIC-PRIVATE ENTITY.
#14896726
B0ycey wrote:I won't respond to most of what you have written as is largely biased to your land privilege opinion. Most of it is correct but isn't the only underlining factors to Capitalism. Without going into deals as you will only spin it to be only associated with land rents again, I will say you are right but so am I.

It's true that modern finance capitalism gives the rich important privileges in addition to landowner privilege, especially banksters' privilege of issuing debt money, corporate limited liability, and the monopoly privileges of IP owners. But landowner privilege is still the most important and valuable privilege, and the only one that capitalism must grant by definition.
This though is completely wrong and is just a bizarre way to bring in land rents into anything.

It's an implication of the Law of Rent.
Wages are a social contract.

That's not the normal meaning of "social contract." Wages are payment for labor.
You decide what you are prepared to take for your labour and your employee decides what they are prepared to pay for it.

But you are both competing in the market, where price is determined.
If the employee has a vast supply of demand for that labour he can offer less.

Cannot parse.
So this is the Doctor and the Footballer argument you here often in society. A doctor has a more useful job for society as a whole so should is more valued to the it

I do not make that argument because value is measured by the market, not someone's subjective opinion, or even a vote.
but the Footballer gets paid more as his talents are in shorter demand for what his employees are prepared to pay.

Again, I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.
If the footballer isn't happy with what he is offered for his labour he moves club. The rent the club pays for the stadium has absolutely nothing to do with how much the club will pay for the players services btw.

Pro sports have very little to do with the market. They are all about subsidies and regulations. Pro athletes are highly paid mainly because their employers rarely if ever have to pay the rent of the land they use, and they get preferential access to broadcast spectrum and IP monopolies.
#14896770
Pro sports have very little to do with the market. They are all about subsidies and regulations. Pro athletes are highly paid mainly because their employers rarely if ever have to pay the rent of the land they use, and they get preferential access to broadcast spectrum and IP monopolies.


No. That may contribute to why the owners have a lot of money but professional sports players are paid a great deal because skills at their level of play are excruciatingly scarce. There are a lot of good players. The colleges are full of them. There are not that many great ones. It is truly supply and demand.
#14896871
Drlee wrote:No. That may contribute to why the owners have a lot of money but professional sports players are paid a great deal because skills at their level of play are excruciatingly scarce. There are a lot of good players. The colleges are full of them. There are not that many great ones. It is truly supply and demand.

That quote you quoted from that guy just shows how determined he is to interject his bizarre notions anywhere and everywhere, and anywhere some more.
#14897087
I personally think that capitalism is great and the best system available. However it has two big issues that grow from one root.

And that is the fact that the more capital you get the easier it's for you to get more capitals.

On another side it's great because it's simply just: if you produce a lot of things for mankind (in production real things, organization, skills or even fun as for creative persons) you should be rewarded for it properly. Your labor makes your life easier and it's exactly what we need from the system, both the motivation and reward.

On the other side the bigger your capitals the further you are from capitalism. And that's the first issue I see. If you have let's say $1,000,000 of capitals you can go and open your store somewhere. If you have $1,000,000,000 you can create a new Amazon or Wal-Mart. And the problem is neither Amazon or Walmart are capitalistic. Capitalism is the constant interaction of small independent agents able to make the decisions on their own, its embodiment is a bazaar full of small tents with noisy people trading with each other. An organization as big as Amazon i (going by a famous analogy) is a cathedral, a centrally calculated system where everything belongs to the plan and general vision of one man. Or not exactly, I'm sure big organizations become things-in-themselves and develop consciousness at growth starting to use humans as their tools instead of vice versa... But it's not the topic. What I try to say is corporations are socialistic by nature. You do want to know how it was to live in the Soviet Union? Easy, just be employed at Google! Whenever their committees will start to discuss if your morning porridge insults high standards of the organization while you feeling your work doesn't interest anybody beside you and you will start to work for senseless numbers instead of real results and being obliged to participate in weird rituals humiliating your human dignity because team-building and other shit, then you will know what socialism is.

Monopoly is not capitalism, whenever your markets are monopolized by someone it means you have no capitalism anymore and still every capitalist system tends to fall into monopoly left on its own because the bigger you are the easier to grow.

Another issue is inheritance. It's just, it's very just that we can leave our valuables to our children, it's what motivates people to work better and harder, because they know they improve not only their life situation (that can be totally satisfying them even if it's low by average standards) but also of their children. They are rewarded for their work with the thought their children are safe and free and have more opportunities then they themselves had.

And still it produces more inequality and injustice and some people live good because they were produced from the correct spermatozoid and that's their only merit. The scientists calculated IIRC that the way in total from the bottom of the humankind to its top takes about 600 years. So you open a pharmacy in a medieval Italy and 600 years later some piece of shit treats people like shit because it doesn't understand them: never worked a day in its life as well as its father, grandfather etc.

It's injustice but banning people's rights to leave inheritance will be injustice too. I don't see the exit of this dilemma and I don't think the greatest injustice socialists propose: "Let's strip people of private property totally" is the way too. I thought a lot about these topics and I haven't found the solution that would be totally just. I am not even sure anymore it exists.
#14897506
TL;DR I did read some though. I hope enough to get the favor.
Some seem to have already touched on this.

I came to this forum to post a thought I had today. It seems like it can fit here easily.

One problem with capitalism is the attitude of "Old Money" have about "New Money".
This is, we are better than the new comers.
In fact, it really should be the other way around. Old money represents the idle sons and daughters of the Old Rich. History provides plenty of evidence that such people are not better than average people in any way [intelligence, work ethic, morals, etc.]. And they are less likely to be better than the children of the new rich tan they are of the average of all people.

I think that society has a right to structure itself to be more of a meritocracy because this system leads to the most progress over the long haul.

In America the Constitution is a good way to set certain policies in concrete and make them hard to be changed by the wealthy. I see a major shake-up coming down the pike. Then will be a good time to set some new policies in concrete to join the "no slavery" policy that was added after the Civil War and the "taxes are necessary" policy that was added at the Constitutional Convention soon after the Revolutionary War. [Elsewhere I have listed some like: the gov. shall provide universal health care, the gov. shall provide old age retirement benefits, and gerrymandering is not allowed.]

Here I want to talk about another one. "The gov. shall have an inheritance tax and a wealth (net worth) tax." What I want to see is a system that forces the grandchildren of the old rich to go out and contribute to society. I don't see any benefit to society for them to sit around and get richer and richer while contributing nothing to society. They can even come to think that they have a right to use their money to subvert the will of the people and change the system to make them richer yet.

My ideal inheritance tax system would tax the 1st generation of recipients at a lower rate than all later recipients. It would also have a higher threshold for family farms where to owners actually manage the farm or ranch.

My ideal net worth tax would demand that list all their assets so they can be taxed. Failure to list an asset would double the tax on that asset. This would include assets owned out of the nation. If you don't like it you can renounce your citizenship and leave. Many assets (like land and buildings) have a fairly constant value, so their value can be evaluated on most any day of the year.
. . However, stocks and maybe bonds, are not in this category. I think I have a good new idea for how to handle stocks. "It is -- at the end of every business day at the market closing the value of the taxpayer's stocks of each company or mutual fund can be calculated easily. Using computers, the taxpayer keeps a running total of the total value of all the stocks he/she owns (at closing) plus their cash on hand divided by the number of business days so far that year. On the last day of the year there will be a final average total net worth; i.e., the total of all the days / the number of days. This average number is then the number that is taxed.
. . To provide some "withholding" for this there might be a "transaction tax" (i.e., a % of the amount of all transactions) which is paid every day [like sales tax] but is deducted form the net worth of stocks tax bill at the end of the year. Small investors would get it all or mostly refunded at the end of the year.
. . Not: this tax would be owned by every holder of any American company's stock, even foreign people and foreign companies. Some nations don't let foreigners own a controlling interest in any company in their nation. This seems like a good idea to me. International companies should be required to have their American holdings be owned only by American companies that they then own. This lets American society tax that part of the company that is in America. How to make this work without being gamed may be difficult. Maybe the US Gov. should tax the business property in America that is owned by foreign people and especially companies. If the asset is in America then it ought to be paying taxes in America and not be allowed to make all the profit overseas by using accounting tricks and so avoid all American taxes.

Some (many) will see this as totally unfair. Why should wealth be taxed if it is not earned in a year, i.e. just held? I see it as similar to the 19th Cent. tax system that taxed ranchers on the land and total cows they owned. This was simply a wealth tax.

As to why? Because society gets no benefit and sees some negatives in letting wealth accumulate in the hands of the Old Money Class. The old money rich did nothing to deserve to live off the rest of the society. They were just born lucky. The level of this tax should be set to gradually suck all the old money away after a few generations. By few I mean 3 or 4 here. For the most part, it is not possible for them to liquidate they assets and leave. The assets (land, buildings, machines, etc.) remain in America to be used by Americans.

Society should hold the New Rich as higher in status than the Old Rich.
#14897934
Drlee wrote:No. That may contribute to why the owners have a lot of money but professional sports players are paid a great deal because skills at their level of play are excruciatingly scarce.

No, you are of course objectively incorrect. Lots of people have vanishingly scarce skills -- Youtube is full of them -- but professional athletes and other entertainers are paid so much because of subsidies, monopolies, and other privileges. A moment's honest thought will make this obvious. If you look at the incomes of athletes and entertainers 50 or 100 years ago as a multiple of median income, their incomes were not that much greater than the median even though the rarity of their skills was no less than of modern ones. The difference is in the expansion of subsidies and extension of privilege.
There are a lot of good players. The colleges are full of them. There are not that many great ones. It is truly supply and demand.

No, because the supply was just as constrained 100 years ago, and demand just as great, but they weren't making the astronomical incomes they are now. The difference is in the value of the privileges they are granted now.
#14898020
No, you are of course objectively incorrect. Lots of people have vanishingly scarce skills -- Youtube is full of them -- but professional athletes and other entertainers are paid so much because of subsidies, monopolies, and other privileges.


Stop moving the bar. My comment was about professional athletes, not "other entertainers". That is a different thing. You are wrong. And I will go so far as to assert that your comment "subsidies, monopolies and other privileges", though wordy, is just about meaningless.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 21

Remember to win an election you want the support o[…]

December 12, Wednesday Secretary of State Lewis[…]

The alarmist over at Skeptical Science does the sa[…]

[img]https://image.stirileprotv.ro/media/images/68[…]