- 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.
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.