Reply With Quote
If Hotel Tycoon has a son, chooses him to run the hotels once he dies, grooms him to run the family business, and leaves him 100% of all stock in all hotels, you would want the state to confiscate those shares to prevent a permanent aristocracy?
gini coefficient, what?
If Hotel Tycoon has a son, chooses him to run the hotels once he dies, grooms him to run the family business, and leaves him 100% of all stock in all hotels, you would want the state to confiscate those shares to prevent a permanent aristocracy?
Is that a problem?
Wild ass guess as to the impact to tax income. I may have been generous.
I've seen the numbers in the past linked with causes.
Most is over 50%.
Poverty? that does deserve better defining. If I recall, the governmental distinction for poverty is something like 30% of the medium income. However, that doesn't mean a person is impoverished.
I only used "poverty" in post 732 because that was the wording used.
For the purpose of this thread, I was thinking of in terms of having a life where one cannot support their needs with their own financial resources. Someone who requires subsidies.
I personally don't like the word "poverty." it is ambiguous, and subjective.
Is saying it a problem? No.
In action, if ins uted by the government, would it be a problem? Absolutely. Should anyone who enforced such a policy be tried for crimes against humanity? You betcha.
It is a voluntary exchange.
The snipping for the subsidies.
No snip, no subsidies.
Just that simple.
No snip, no subsidies = babies born into a family not receiving subsidies = Government beating down the door to take the babies?
Such a small government libertarian, you are.
Let's not also forget that, regardless of how involved you think they should be, government policies have a huge impact on the economic environment that results in people needing those subsidies. So in your fascist scape, you have government policy not only impacting jobs and income for the poor, but also their right to reproduce.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you at one point say your parents were on government assistance? You are advocating that they should have been snipped prior to spawning you?
I have never advocated that. I only advocate this for those who at the time of conception, were in no financial position to have children. My mother took food stamps for a short few weeks when my parents divorces, before she found employment. I was 12 at the time. It was the first and only time we were subsidized, and it was never a lifestyle for us like it is for so many.
wut?
economic eugenics by the dumbest person on this board. have to love this place.
So she should have been neutered then.
Bull then.
No evidence means we can dismiss your claim, out of hand. It is the only reasonable thing to do.
Thanks for clearing that up. Either you are lying about having seen the evidence, or you think you remember something that didn't actually happen.
Very human, but since there is no evidence, that makes consideration of any policy based on your truthiness easy.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-25-2016 at 11:23 AM.
[RG-please define "most" and "poverty"
"poverty" has a very specific meaning when it comes to many federal programs. It has to, in order to consider policies to alleviate it.
Your definition "one cannot support their needs with their own financial resources" is very close to what the government uses in economic measurements.
It is hard to have any meaningful discussions about poverty, if the people involved have never given any thought to what is being discussed.
The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/up...smtyp=cur&_r=0
Growing Up in a Bad Neighborhood Does More Harm Than We Thought
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ericc...pportunity.pdfThe neighborhood in which you grow up is a major determinant of your economic success as an adult. That’s been known for a while, but new research suggests that the effects may be much larger than social scientists previously understood.
These findings could fundamentally reshape national housing policy.
The new insight is that much of our best evidence about the effects of growing up in a bad neighborhood comes from examining children whose parents work particularly hard to protect them from the dangers around them. The negative effects of a bad neighborhood may be much larger for low-income families with less motivated parents.
A recent research paper by Eric Chyn, an economist completing his dissertation at the University of Michigan, explores this idea. Mr. Chyn’s findings have received close attention from economists around the country.
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.o.../mto_paper.pdf
I will be happy to agree that personal decisions affect outcomes for anybody.
The problem with that statement is that it oversimplifies the very complex process of decision making.
Emtionally stunted twits like to use this as an excuse to make themselves feel superior to others, by insisting that all bad decisions are some moral fault. This is stupid, and it leads to bad policies that throw away human potential, and actively harm the economy.
Good decisions are the result of a skill, and good information.
There has been a lot of research showing our brains are wired in many cases to come to irrational, poor decisions. I can post tons of studies on this subject. Behavioral economics is something of a new hybrid field that has sprung up around this tendency.
Personally I think it is better to treat people as if they can make good decisions, and help them do so, rather than punishing them for being human, and making mistakes that any one of us could.
Confiscate all the shares? No. Tax them heavily, sure.
In this case, the son has, in effect, won the lottery. Why should it be treated differently?
Rich people have too much wealth in the US, and it is beginning to drag the economy.
So, you would permanently alter someone with a surgical procedure someone who was temporarily unable to financially provide for a child?
ing stupid.
It is ing stupid because it is entirely possible, even with the best birth control, to get pregnant.
Will you provide free contraception to help prevent this?
Flesh it out. Let's see how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
More than half of the wealth in the US is held by fewer than 400 families.
You might want to re-think that %.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...uality-america
Why shouldn't I get to pass on what I've earned to my children without being taxed heavily? Because you don't think that that's fair? Didn't my husband and I work hard and smart to earn that money? Same principle should apply no matter what the amount.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...gh-to-be-fair/
That wealth has become increasingly concentrated, even though high-income americans pay the most in taxes, means that their income growth has far exceeded the tax rates.
Most of the real economic growth in the last 20 years have gone to the high-income earners.
And it is only getting worse.
Ah, there is the issue.
Define "fair".
The estate tax exempts millions of dollars before anything is really taxed.
How much is "fair" to give to someone whose only qualification is that they were lucky in the parent lottery?
What tax system would you want, if you had to think of one, without knowing where and to whom you would be born to?
Yes, but you're looking at specific cases of estates, not every wealthy family. Until you can quantify your case, my wild ass guess is essentially equal to yours.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions