"The Psychology of Progressive Hostility"

[RSL]

US has no issues to commit war crimes by intentionally nuking civilian targets - did it already twice, will do it again of course...

According to your profile you have no name, you're nowhere, and your age is N/A. If you really believe that the activities by the US that ended WW II were a war crime I can understand why you'd want to remain anonymous. You might want to see if you can learn a bit of history.

[DP]

You might want to see if you can learn a bit of history.

  in its american interpretation, no less ? USA actions are no different from Assad's actions aimed to end the activities of sunni terrorists instigated & sponsored by USA and its allies among the sunni dictatorship regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other emirates of various flavors... kill civilians to save the lives of your own soldiers...

[RSL]

Wow! You must be a really young kid. "American interpretation?" How about British interpretation? How about Canadian interpretation? How about French interpretation? I could go on, but I realize I'm talking past you. Are you in grade school?

[DP]

How about British interpretation? How about Canadian interpretation? How about French interpretation?

you mean to list every US ally here or limit yourself to just NATO, seriously    ? ...

[Rob C]

I believe Rob was referring to the 99% tax rate, which would surely fit the word “massive.”

Indeed, and that's what created the concept of tax exiles. AFAIK, some of the Nordic lands were as fond of that idea as was Labour Britain in the period. Wasn't it Bergman, the director, who claimed you could end up paying more tax than you were earning?

The absent king of Scotland, 007 mk1, went to live in Spain and Lyford Cay in New Providence, Bahamas. Guess why. The great egalitarian seeking a little more equality, no doubt.

[Rob C]

Wow! You must be a really young kid. "American interpretation?" How about British interpretation? How about Canadian interpretation? How about French interpretation? I could go on, but I realize I'm talking past you. Are you in grade school?

Russ, not worth the metaphorical ink it takes to reply to some of these posts. Don't waste your energies.

Rob

[Jeremy Roussak]

in its american interpretation, no less ? USA actions are no different from Assad's actions aimed to end the activities of sunni terrorists instigated & sponsored by USA and its allies among the sunni dictatorship regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other emirates of various flavors... kill civilians to save the lives of your own soldiers...

This silly provocation, hidden in anonymity and irrelevant to the topic, must stop. DP, consider this your final warning.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

This silly provocation, hidden in anonymity and irrelevant to the topic, must stop. DP, consider this your final warning.

Jeremy

Provocation? The point, surely, is simply to illustrate that what constitutes "history" depends on where you stand?  Seems a lot less of a provocation than RSL's ad hominem?

[Rob C]

Provocation? The point, surely, is simply to illustrate that what constitutes "history" depends on where you stand?  Seems a lot less of a provocation than RSL's ad hominem?

One man's ad hom. is sometimes another's mild exasperation.

Rob

[John Camp]

I don't at all agree with massive taxation of the wealthy.

I didn't say "massive taxation of the wealthy." I suggest 99% taxation at time of death, with a remnant of the wealth ($25 million free and clear) passed on to heirs. I suggested that there earners of the wealth would be able spend as much as they wish on whatever they wish -- giant yachts, airliners, etc., but wouldn't be able to pass it all on. It's the pernicious accumulation of great wealth over generations that is harmful; the generation that actually earns it is usually pretty useful.

[John Camp]

John,

I believe we mostly agree. I’ll respond more in details when I find a keyboard.

Except for one thing perhaps. I believe that the military spendings in the US are mostly motivated by the influence of the weapon lobby and are way exagerated compare to actual needs, even with real threats.

Besides these spendings have benefited hugely many civilian businesses and end up being state funding of private enterprise just like Europe subsidises some companies.

As far as Russia goes, it is a complex topic. I believe that antagonizing them will end up being a self-realizinh prophecy and once again, who would that benefit besides arm dealers?

Cheers,
Bernard

Actually, we agree on almost all of that, as well. The genesis of the problem was the fear of WWIII and Communist imperialism, which seemed to be going on everywhere in the late 40s and 50s -- China, Indochina, Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc. There was also the overriding fear of a nuclear exchange...I come from the "duck-and-cover" generation, and believe me, the fear was real. Then, because of the manipulations of the military-industrial complex -- there is hardly a congressional district anywhere in the US that doesn't have an employer manufacturing goods for the military, which guarantees congressional support for the military -- we can hardly escape military spending, as stupid as it is at times. If we do manage to curtail unnecessary military spending, which Obama managed to do to a small degree, then western Europe might find itself compelled to increase spending substantially...and in fact, that process has already begun. Much of this fear, IMHO, is created by the political elite which manipulates it to maintain their positions. Russia itself is now (again, IMHO) held together mostly by fantasies. Does anybody really want to invade Russia? Does anybody really want to cripple Russia or do more damage than the Russians already do to themselves? Does anybody really want to invade the US or China? There are all these fantasies out there, and they seem to infect the elites as much as the rest of us dumbasses.

On a somewhat non-related topic, a  number of Donald Trump's aides have been dumped because they couldn't get security clearances. IMHO, security clearances are a waste of time. We need security for two things: the timing of military actions and the identity of spies. Nothing else is really worth protecting, but we have these huge security organizations which are more of a threat to freedom than any foreign nation could ever be. I actually think we'd all be *better* off if everybody knew everything about everybody.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... but wouldn't be able to pass it all on...

Knowing that what you earned will end up in governornment hands diminishes the motivation to earn it in the first place. Note that I am not against a reasonable inheritance tax, but 99%!?

[Farmer]

Knowing that what you earned will end up in governornment hands diminishes the motivation to earn it in the first place. Note that I am not against a reasonable inheritance tax, but 99%!?

Why any?  Taxes were already paid in the first instance.  Why again?  If there's a capital gain on an asset, sure, tax the estate on the gain, but not on principal values.

[John Camp]

Why any?  Taxes were already paid in the first instance.  Why again?  If there's a capital gain on an asset, sure, tax the estate on the gain, but not on principal values.

Doesn't have anything to do with taxation, in a certain philosophical sense. It has to do with breaking up concentrations of inherited wealth. I say 99% of everything over $25 million (or pick a more suitable number) but would allow the owners of that wealth to create limited kinds of charitable foundations (with sunset limitations on the charities) so the money wouldn't necessarily go to the government. We still have politically active Rockefellers, Kennedys, Kochs and so on generations after the their family founders made the money, and their prominence is based on nothing but the inheritance, rather than any political/social/intellectual merit. Why should do-nothing heirs have the power to distort the whole political fabric of a country? I read recently about a very rich heiress who did nothing for most of her life, but did spend $1 million on her daughter's coming out party...in the 1960s. I was making (if I recall correctly) $90 a month as a draftee...and I was married.

[Farmer]

Doesn't have anything to do with taxation, in a certain philosophical sense. It has to do with breaking up concentrations of inherited wealth. I say 99% of everything over $25 million (or pick a more suitable number) but would allow the owners of that wealth to create limited kinds of charitable foundations (with sunset limitations on the charities) so the money wouldn't necessarily go to the government. We still have politically active Rockefellers, Kennedys, Kochs and so on generations after the their family founders made the money, and their prominence is based on nothing but the inheritance, rather than any political/social/intellectual merit. Why should do-nothing heirs have the power to distort the whole political fabric of a country? I read recently about a very rich heiress who did nothing for most of her life, but did spend $1 million on her daughter's coming out party...in the 1960s. I was making (if I recall correctly) $90 a month as a draftee...and I was married.

What's the philosophy involved?  "Don't excel"?  Fix the basic taxation system and laws (and I'm Australian and this applies here, the US, pretty much everywhere) to remove special interest groups and then continue to tax profits and income and having done that, once, the balance is free for the owner to do with as they please (including leaving it to family).  You put a cap of $25m (or whatever figure you like), but what if someone has 1 child and someone else has 10?  Is it per person?  What if they want to donate it to other people, entities, etc.?  All you're really doing is introducing a zillion special cases for people to claim exemptions and you have the same problem as you do now.

[Ray]

What's the philosophy involved?  "Don't excel"?  Fix the basic taxation system and laws (and I'm Australian and this applies here, the US, pretty much everywhere) to remove special interest groups and then continue to tax profits and income and having done that, once, the balance is free for the owner to do with as they please (including leaving it to family).  You put a cap of $25m (or whatever figure you like), but what if someone has 1 child and someone else has 10?  Is it per person?  What if they want to donate it to other people, entities, etc.?  All you're really doing is introducing a zillion special cases for people to claim exemptions and you have the same problem as you do now.

The philosophy is, that all our resources should be used for the betterment of mankind as a whole.

All the poverty and malnutrition in the world is due to an inefficient and wasteful use of resources.

A billionaire who builds a mansion in the countryside, which is empty for most of the year, and/or who owns six of the most expensive cars that money can buy, just for the pleasure of occasionally riding in one, driven by a chauffeur who's on standby most of the time, and/or who owns  a private plane which is used very infrequently, is simply wasting resources which could be spent far more sensibly for the benefit of others.

On the other hand, an individual from an average background, who's given a good education and has a dream to become a successful entrepreneur, and who succeeds in creating billion dollar industries which give employment and prosperity to thousands of workers, is in a different category, and is to be applauded.

[Farmer]

The philosophy is, that all our resources should be used for the betterment of mankind as a whole.

All the poverty and malnutrition in the world is due to an inefficient and wasteful use of resources.

A billionaire who builds a mansion in the countryside, which is empty for most of the year, and/or who owns six of the most expensive cars that money can buy, just for the pleasure of occasionally riding in one, driven by a chauffeur who's on standby most of the time, and/or who owns  a private plane which is used very infrequently, is simply wasting resources which could be spent far more sensibly for the benefit of others.

On the other hand, an individual from an average background, who's given a good education and has a dream to become a successful entrepreneur, and who succeeds in creating billion dollar industries which give employment and prosperity to thousands of workers, is in a different category, and is to be applauded.

That's quite absurd.

Those expensive cars are bought from a company that gives employment and prosperity to however many workers and exists only because some people are able to afford their products.  That plane, and the maintenance, and the pilot(s) and crew and so on, the same.

The vast, vast, vast, majority of inheritence is not from billionaires to their children.  Even $25m mentioned above is not a huge amount, for example, if you had, say, 5 beneficiaries (and under the proposal anything over that is gone).  Here in Sydney you could buy a nice house and a car, furnish it, and you'd be lucky to have change from $2m and that's just a suburban family home and a mid-ranged car.  Add $500k if you wanted to move those up in the start of the luxury level.  The remaining balance, invested in a low risk way, wouldn't generate an excessive amount once you factor in tax and CPI.

But it still misses the point.  The money being passed on has already been taxed.  Why should it be taxed again due to death?  All the income derived from the wealth will continue to be taxed, money will be spent to replaced or maintain things and going back into the economy or invested in other ways (even a simple bank account leads to credit creation, and other capital investments contribute as well).

So what if someone is lucky?  Because that's really what you want to tax - someone's luck that they inheret a large sum.  You don't want them to be lucky - you want them to "work" for it, without having any idea what they may or may not have contributed or what they may or may not contribute going forward.

As I said, stop all the special interest groups, simplify the tax system, and go from there, but just tax things once.

[jeremyrh]

The money being passed on has already been taxed.  Why should it be taxed again due to death? 

Why not? The tax system is an instrument of public policy, not a law of thermodynamics.

[Rob C]

I didn't say "massive taxation of the wealthy." I suggest 99% taxation at time of death, with a remnant of the wealth ($25 million free and clear) passed on to heirs. I suggested that there earners of the wealth would be able spend as much as they wish on whatever they wish -- giant yachts, airliners, etc., but wouldn't be able to pass it all on. It's the pernicious accumulation of great wealth over generations that is harmful; the generation that actually earns it is usually pretty useful.

I can't agree with you at all, John.

You are really deciding what an acceptable (to you) level of wealth might be from your personal perspective, and that is a flawed concept. Different people have different expectations, experiences, starting points and different obligations in life; as has been pointed out, even the number of children (let's not yet consider how the family tree spreads, branches out as it goes to grandchildren and beyond) will greatly affect the distribution and the value to each beneficiary.

I am personally very, very far from being rich, but life has made me close to some millionaires and yes, I have cruised the Med with them and all that kind of stuff. But don't imagine their life is all one of luxury and the dolce far niente. They work all the time to keep the act together, those many balls all up in the air; to keep on top of the ever-changing values and fortunes of their investments and businesses. Beyond those problems they have to contend with family and the many pretty sharks surrounding them and their sons, not to mention the hungry males doing the same to their daughters. Money does not come alone; it always has its own penalty and cost to everyone who gets it in any meanigful way. Even lottery winners find the same problems, and without the acquired skills to know how to cope.

There is no way that I can visualise it to be right to remove from anyone or their family the wealth they have earned honestly. I do not think that the concept of spreading it around by decree is the right way to go about it; that's just extortion by state. Enough that tax is paid as the money is earned. Why should the state then rob the corpses of those who were able to make money? It's disgusting tomb raiding and robbery, pure and simple.

If you want disincentive to the creation of enterprises, then taxation even beyond death is one sure way to go about crushing the human spirit of adventure. Better just to create the little corner shop and leave it at that.

Holding together companies is no easy business, and weakening them by removing capital does little to further the interests of those firms and simply puts both company and employees in danger. Vast wealth is not usually left sitting in banks, and where it is, even that money is put out to work by the banks; wealth is used to make more wealth, and that necessitates its circulation into and through other businesses and ventures and experiments, all of which include the employment of other people both highly skilled as well as at the lowest levels of ability.

Don't kill the golden goose, and do keep all spanners far from the works!

[jeremyrh]

I can't agree with you at all, John.

You are really deciding what an acceptable (to you) level of wealth might be from your personal perspective, and that is a flawed concept. Different people have different expectations, experiences, starting points and different obligations in life;

Looking forward to hearing how the tax man reacts when Rob tells him he has no tax to pay due to his "expectations" and "obligations in life". I suspect that the conversation won't go very well.