• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Property Rights vs the Collective

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
 
calamity said:
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
Click to expand...

I try not to think or speak in absolutes, but at times it is necessary. The rich will always have the advantage, and the rich will always exist. Until the day when money is abolished and greed is from a bygone era in human evolution, people will find a way to take advantage of others. An ideal system can minimize this fact, but never eliminate it. I agree with an inheritance tax. the problem is not with the wealthy, it is with a system which allows wealth to accumulate within families. When someone is rich, it should be because they earned it.. not because of two rich people's genital friction. Trust fund babies need to go extinct.
 
You can try to polish a turd but income redistribution through confiscatory and punitive policy is still a turd. Nice try, comrade but nyet.


calamity said:
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
Click to expand...
 
TobyOne said:
You can try to polish a turd but income redistribution through confiscatory and punitive policy is still a turd. Nice try, comrade but nyet.
Click to expand...
Two turds are in the room: the leeching of collectivism and the trust fund leeches.
 
calamity said:
Two turds are in the room: the leeching of collectivism and the trust fund leeches.
Click to expand...

Nope. Only one turd in this room...the one who thinks he has some kind of right to the fruits of another man's labor.
 
calamity said:
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
Click to expand...

A family farm or business could easily exceed $5M (asset value) yet produce a quite modest income. In such cases, paying a 90% tax could well force the sale of that asset simply to pay the inheritance taxes due on it.
 
Mycroft said:
Nope. Only one turd in this room...the one who thinks he has some kind of right to the fruits of another man's labor.
Click to expand...

Such as the labor, let's say, of Donald Trump, Jr.? The labor in any inherited wealth?

The question is about the progressive tax system which has been in effect in the U.S. for 150 years, and is presently at one of its least progressive rate structures ever.
 
JackA said:
Such as the labor, let's say, of Donald Trump, Jr.? The labor in any inherited wealth?

The question is about the progressive tax system which has been in effect in the U.S. for 150 years, and is presently at one of its least progressive rate structures ever.
Click to expand...

You don't think Trump Jr. works? Also, I don't think he's inherited anything yet...after all, his parents are still alive. Shrug...maybe he inherited something from his grandfather?

In any case, someone expended labor for all of that. Why should the government put it's sticky paws on any of it?
 
Mycroft said:
You don't think Trump Jr. works? Also, I don't think he's inherited anything yet...after all, his parents are still alive. Shrug...maybe he inherited something from his grandfather?

In any case, someone expended labor for all of that. Why should the government put it's sticky paws on any of it?
Click to expand...



So that you have highways drive your car on, a military to defend the country, a President you can fawn over, a few things like that.
 
calamity said:
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
Click to expand...



I'm happy with the current 40% on anything over $5.49 million.
 
So?

.

JackA said:
Such as the labor, let's say, of Donald Trump, Jr.? The labor in any inherited wealth?

The question is about the progressive tax system which has been in effect in the U.S. for 150 years, and is presently at one of its least progressive rate structures ever.
Click to expand...
 
holbritter said:
I'm happy with the current 40% on anything over $5.49 million.
Click to expand...
That's pretty low, IMO.

My way would be:

0% first Million
20% from 1 to 3 million
40% 3 to 5
90% 5 to 10
95% 10 to 20
99% after that.
 
calamity said:
That's pretty low, IMO.

My way would be:

0% first Million
20% from 1 to 3 million
40% 3 to 5
90% 5 to 10
95% 10 to 20
99% after that.
Click to expand...

That is probably why you are not in any position to have things your way.
 
calamity said:
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. It would be just another example of the lunacy of the left; preach jealousy, envy and class warfare. One of the old fashioned American values was that we work so our children can have it better than we did; not so the government can confiscate what we've built in the name of some idiotic ideological nonsense.
 
TobyOne said:
You can try to polish a turd but income redistribution through confiscatory and punitive policy is still a turd. Nice try, comrade but nyet.
Click to expand...
Someone I talked to one time postulated that if we were to collect all the wealth in America and doled it out equally to every adult citizen within a generation or two the wealth distribution would be very similar to what we have now. That doesn't necessarily mean the same people would own the wealth again (many would I'm guessing) just that some people would accumulate through their own initiative and ambition while others would squander theirs.
 
calamity said:
Two turds are in the room: the leeching of collectivism and the trust fund leeches.
Click to expand...
I suspect trust fund leeches are far more prevalent on TV dramas that in real life. I'd suggest the inheritors are far more likely to be working carrying on the family business.
 
JackA said:
So that you have highways drive your car on, a military to defend the country, a President you can fawn over, a few things like that.
Click to expand...

You don't need to tax people's inheritance to pay for that.

In any case, the OP is all about punishing people for working hard by taking their money away from their children.
 
JackA said:
Such as the labor, let's say, of Donald Trump, Jr.? The labor in any inherited wealth?

The question is about the progressive tax system which has been in effect in the U.S. for 150 years, and is presently at one of its least progressive rate structures ever.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. When nearly 45% or earners have no income tax liability (and may actually get money back they never paid in because of EITC) and the to 10% pay a majority of the total revenue our system is progressive enough.
 
calamity said:
That's pretty low, IMO.

My way would be:

0% first Million
20% from 1 to 3 million
40% 3 to 5
90% 5 to 10
95% 10 to 20
99% after that.
Click to expand...
Based on nothing more than jealousy and envy.
 
calamity said:
Two extremes. One led to serfs and peasants working the land for nobles. Basically, we can look to old Europe to see the downside of that system: you were either born into land or you killed someone for it.

The other system led to peasants working the land for the state. In this case, everyone not belonging to the Party elite gets screwed.

Our system: one in which anyone with some brains, self-control and industriousness can achieve some wealth and own property; seems to be a hybrid of the two, at least to a point. But, as we see here lately, the haves are beginning to gain the upper hand over the have-nots.

Question to ask is. How good is this development?

I'm all for rewarding success and punishing poor decision-making, but we don't really do that on a level playing field. It still matters whether or not you won the ovarian lottery. SO, those with "nobility" running through their veins get breaks other would not.

How to solve that? 90% tax on inheritance of anything over $5M would probably be a good start.
Click to expand...

Red:
??? In the feudal system of "old Europe," everyone worked for the state. As Louis XIV is reputed to have said, "L'etat c'est moi." It doesn't matter whether he indeed said that. What matters is that the sentiment of the remark aptly summarizes how feudal monarchies functioned, notwithstanding the nature and extent to which the monarch delegated authority and bestowed or retained property among themselves and their court of nobles.

Blue:
While one can't be profoundly deficient intellectually and obtain much "wealthy and/or property," one doesn't need more "brains" than nature bestows on the "average" individual in order to obtain "some wealth and own property."

Pink:
??? What? What you note is not a new phenomenon. The "haves" have never not had the upper hand over the "have nots." Having the upper hand is definitionally what it means to be a "have."

Tan:
Your remarks together imply that inherited wealth is the preponderant factor in whether one is "something" besides a member of a given income/wealth cohort. I can assure you that it is not. While it is so that being born into a wealthy family increases one's chances of also being wealthy, being born to a non-wealthy family does not prevent one from becoming wealthy. Similarly, it doesn't ensure one will remain so.
For the most part, the path to wealth is that of entrepreneurship, or one can also achieve wealth as an employee. The former route, however, requires access to capital that the latter does not, whereas the latter requires one have smarts that the former route does not absolutely require. On average, one needs about $30K to launch a business, and $30K isn't exactly going to qualify one for the labels of "poor" or "wealthy," and overwhelmingly, business founders obtain that money from personal savings, family and friends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom