|
Rime posted:America developing solely as a mixture of French and Spanish cultures would be the kind of alternate-universe that I'd love to live in. A bigger clusterfuck I couldn't imagine. Not being saddled with the legal and institutional legacies of those two august nations was a huge benefit to the fledgling US of A.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Rime posted:America developing solely as a mixture of French and Spanish cultures would be the kind of alternate-universe that I'd love to live in. Spanish colonial racism was fairly similar to modern US racism (ie, "if you're poor you're effectively black and if you're rich you're effectively white") so not much would change on that front.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Global median per-capita income is just under $3000. How many of you would be willing, as zero-sumbEJWs, to give up meat, cars, and other trappings of First-World lifestyle to live like the global working class and poor? Ignoring this overly-busy satirical moniker, I already can't afford a car, and could probably do with less meat. As people said below, though, $30,000 is probably a better estimate, and it's more than I make now. I could actually afford a car if I had that, maybe, although I probably still wouldn't, as that seems excessive, and I could use a service like Zipcar if I really needed a personal vehicle short-term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
It's funny how apologists for capital can't help but recite all the tired liberal antiviolence memes, even in the thread specifically devoted to NOT killing the rich. But I suppose actual lapdogs don't vary their yapping much either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
The really funny part of saying that estate taxes are part of equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome is that it literally equalizes the final outcomes of people's lives. What's really meant, of course, is that TheImmigrant wants to murder nine-tenths of this forum through starving them to death, but whatever, the blood wouldn't be on his hands when the "lazy" die off. Equality of opportunity and of outcomes are entirely intertwined and you, like TheImmigrant, have to be willfully redefining them to present them as mutually exclusive without resorting to market-liberal blather.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The really funny part of saying that estate taxes are part of equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome is that it literally equalizes the final outcomes of people's lives. Dead people have no property rights. With equal opportunity, a rich man dies rich, and presumably more comfortable than a waster. Estate taxes ensure that the rich man's offspring are not given a head start on everyone else because of circumstances that have nothing to do with their own merit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:12
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Dead people have no property rights. With equal opportunity, a rich man dies rich, and presumably more comfortable than a waster. Estate taxes ensure that the rich man's offspring are not given a head start on everyone else because of circumstances that have nothing to do with their own merit. Haha, you smug little bitch. Nice slicing and dicing you got going on there, with the sauce of "waster" (read- low-wage service worker) besides. The point is that in order to equalize opportunities you must equalize outcomes. Money must be taken from people who accumulated it from inheritance, elite schooling must not be anything other than randomly available if it exists at all. Corporations may not be able to exist if we really, truly want equality of opportunity at a radical level. Conversely, equality of outcomes does require equality of opportunity as well, because there are many ephemeral things you can't transfer between people. Of course, the two diverge if we take them to shithead interpretations, but there's no need if we're communicating, and if we aren't, I might as well be asking whether you gotta pay extra when the hooker sees your face.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
According to TheImmigrant, poor people are mediocre, feckless wasters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Haha, you smug little bitch. You concede the argument so early, with the ad hominem. quote:The point is that in order to equalize opportunities you must equalize outcomes. Money must be taken from people who accumulated it from inheritance, elite schooling must not be anything other than randomly available if it exists at all. No, money is taken from estates. An estate is the vestigial property of a dead person. It is by operation of law that an estate becomes the personal property of an heir - there is no reason that the law cannot dictate another recipient of a wealthy decedent's estate. Elite schooling should be reserved for those with elite intelligence who are willing and able to apply it. Opportunity comes at the beginning. Outcome is the end. People have varying ability and motivation; start them all at an equal footing, and they will wind up in different places. Equal outcome requires hobbling the gifted so that the mediocre are able to wind up in the same place. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see my society defined by the accomplishments of the gifted than anchored to the inertia of the mediocre. quote:Corporations may not be able to exist if we really, truly want equality of opportunity at a radical level.[/quote[ This is true, which is why 'equality of opportunity' is necessarily a term of art. We can't guarantee that everyone is born with equal intelligence or physical ability. The ideal is to guarantee that everyone has the opportunity to realize their potential fully. As an ideal, it can never be fully attained, but that's no reason not to continue working toward that idea. quote:Of course, the two diverge if we take them to shithead interpretations, but there's no need if we're communicating, and if we aren't, I might as well be asking whether you gotta pay extra when the hooker sees your face. You sound angry. How's that working out for you? Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you go through life sneering, your face will freeze that way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:According to TheImmigrant, poor people are mediocre, feckless wasters. No. Either you are being willfully obtuse, or genuinely have trouble with reading comprehension. In a society with perfect equality of opportunity (none of us live in such a society), mediocre, feckless wasters would be poor. As eternal dictator, I would guarantee them the minimum necessary to survive and prevent their widespread criminalization, but that's it. If you're able to provide for yourself and contribute to society, yet opt not to do so, you don't deserve any more than dormitory accommodation and nutritious, but boring food. In the US as it exists, there are many reasons for poverty. Sure, many poors are mediocrities and feckless wasters. Others had very slim opportunities because their schooling sucked (not their fault). Tying school funding to local property taxes is one of the most morally-bankrupt facets to the US today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:35
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You concede the argument so early, with the ad hominem. When the revolution comes, people who write like this will be assigned a debate coach, who will smack them whenever they use formalism in informal communications. Happy Boxing Day!! Also, an adhominem would have been stopping there, or speculating on whether you're morbidly obese, or just regular type, ya big lardbucket. quote:No, money is taken from estates. An estate is the vestigial property of a dead person. It is by operation of law that an estate becomes the personal property of an heir - there is no reason that the law cannot dictate another recipient of a wealthy decedent's estate. Elite schooling should be reserved for those with elite intelligence who are willing and able to apply it. Opportunity comes at the beginning. Outcome is the end. People have varying ability and motivation; start them all at an equal footing, and they will wind up in different places. Equal outcome requires hobbling the gifted so that the mediocre are able to wind up in the same place. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see my society defined by the accomplishments of the gifted than anchored to the inertia of the mediocre. You're starting out with a muchness of jabbering that actually, really, communicates that equality of outcomes are necessarily extralegal instead of whatever stupid bullshit you intended to communicate. This is an improvement, because it makes you seem more and more like a deranged schizophrenic pretending to be a world traveler. Okay, now determine what intelligence is, how to measure it accurately and without cultural effects, how to evaluate someone's ability to apply intelligence, whether disabilities that can be treated should disqualify you from getting a good education... Note that while you're probably going to ignore these, you actually should think about them on the off chance you think about anything. More importantly, you wrote this without reading the part where I said, "to shitheaded interpretations", or else you don't actually want to communicate, just sermonize. Well, preacher man, gently caress you. At least the dipshits cackling for violent revolution want to do something, instead of being a pasty blob of white-collar, centrist smarminess until they retire and instead become someone's boring great-uncle. quote:This is true, which is why 'equality of opportunity' is necessarily a term of art. We can't guarantee that everyone is born with equal intelligence or physical ability. The ideal is to guarantee that everyone has the opportunity to realize their potential fully. As an ideal, it can never be fully attained, but that's no reason not to continue working toward that idea. Actually, there is. For example, the institutional knowledge associated with corporations may be worth the lack of entrepreneurship opportunities. Technocracy may prove to be inferior to democracy. quote:You sound angry. How's that working out for you? Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you go through life sneering, your face will freeze that way? Oh, that explains why you have that expression on all the time.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:No, money is taken from estates. An estate is the vestigial property of a dead person. It is by operation of law that an estate becomes the personal property of an heir - there is no reason that the law cannot dictate another recipient of a wealthy decedent's estate. Elite schooling should be reserved for those with elite intelligence who are willing and able to apply it. Opportunity comes at the beginning. Outcome is the end. People have varying ability and motivation; start them all at an equal footing, and they will wind up in different places. Equal outcome requires hobbling the gifted so that the mediocre are able to wind up in the same place. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see my society defined by the accomplishments of the gifted than anchored to the inertia of the mediocre. Instead, let's destroy the status of the elites. There will be downsides but nothing so bad as your bigoted attitude. Sufficient repression should control any backlash. There's no good reason for inheritance of any kind. Provide universal housing, health care, college education and GMI. If pops wants to leave you his train set or his Camaro fine. Trusts? Businesses? Sorry, they should revert to state ownership. And if millionaires try to flee the country their accounts should be frozen and their necks implanted with an RFID chip. No guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
The world would unironically benefit from the destruction of tax havens. They are widely acknowledged to be a social ill. I therefore suggest that the nations of the world invade Switzerland, the Caymans, Jersey et al and split the proceeds.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:a bunch of regurgitated cant PolySci undergrads are so disappointing these days. quote:At least the dipshits cackling for violent revolution want to do something, instead of being a pasty blob of white-collar, centrist smarminess until they retire and instead become someone's boring great-uncle. I'd put good money on most of the cackling dipshit armchair revolutionaries here making GBS threads their pants at the first whiff of tear gas, and certainly being more bloblike and pasty and killself miserable than my circle of deviants and bon-vivants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You concede the argument so early, with the ad hominem. I think it's spelled avada kedavra
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The world would unironically benefit from the destruction of tax havens. They are widely acknowledged to be a social ill. I therefore suggest that the nations of the world invade Switzerland, the Caymans, Jersey et al and split the proceeds. How about expatriation? I've had a few clients hand in their green cards in order to avoid US taxation, and it's not unheard of for people to expatriate for tax reasons. It's an issue in France right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
citizens holding more than a certain level of wealth will have their assets seized equal to a fairly estimated lifetime of taxation upon expatriation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:52
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:PolySci undergrads are so disappointing these days. I'm not a political science undergraduate, you arrogant sack of poo poo. But at least I know that you can't or won't respond to any criticism of your revival of Plato, even something as meek as "how do you find philosopher-kings" or "maybe this technocratic system isn't as good as democracy". quote:I'd put good money on most of the cackling dipshit armchair revolutionaries here making GBS threads their pants at the first whiff of tear gas, and certainly being more bloblike and pasty and killself miserable than my circle of deviants and bon-vivants. Okay, whatever, keep masturbating to how deviant you are (hot wax, maybe you're a queer of some kind, maybe even daring the whip) and how much better your circle of pretentious blowhards is than the other circle of pretentious blowhards.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:52
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:How about expatriation? I've had a few clients hand in their green cards in order to avoid US taxation, and it's not unheard of for people to expatriate for tax reasons. It's an issue in France right now. I think some forms of expatriation can be legitimate, at least you are committing yourself to something as part of the trade. There is a difference between that and channelling your wealth through non-countries in which you do not live with the express intent of avoiding the tax regime of any large nation, while still spending a great deal of your time doing business in / living in the countries whose tax you are avoiding. No nations like this, and it benefits the world not at all The solution is not lower taxes, but to squeeze these jurisdictions until they stop - the process of which is slowly beginning.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'd put good money on most of the cackling dipshit armchair revolutionaries here making GBS threads their pants at the first whiff of tear gas, and certainly being more bloblike and pasty and killself miserable than my circle of deviants and bon-vivants. Tear gas is actually pretty good for your pores and sinuses. Look, man, I think you are being needlessly antagonistic, and people are being needlessly antagonistic to you in return. You seem to be in favor of 100% estate tax and divorcing school funding from property taxes. These, in themselves, would probably make a world of difference to income and outcome inequality in the US. Don't the rest of you agree? As for expatriation, the US already requires US citizens to pay taxes for income overseas, so that isn't anything new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, whatever, keep masturbating to how deviant you are (hot wax, maybe you're a queer of some kind, maybe even daring the whip) and how much better your circle of pretentious blowhards is than the other circle of pretentious blowhards. That's, like, awesome. Yes, I might be gay - you might call me a human being. I'm sorry I distressed you enough to interrupt your circle-jerk over whether Marx is really cool; or really, REALLY cool. Scintillating debate you have, son. Disinterested posted:I think some forms of expatriation can be legitimate, at least you are committing yourself to something as part of the trade. I generally agree with you on this. As to legitimate expatriation, I don't think anyone unwilling to pay for the protections afforded by citizenship should be able to avail themselves of those protections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Furthermore, it's too much of a risk to allow parents to raise their own children, especially these putative "elites." Let's separate the generations and raise children in creches with trained professionals, so they can learn correct thinking. Khmer Rouge? More like Care Rouge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Tear gas is actually pretty good for your pores and sinuses. Sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment. I've been tear-gassed a couple of times, and I'll take a few blackheads and a stuffy head over it any day. quote:Look, man, I think you are being needlessly antagonistic, and people are being needlessly antagonistic to you in return. You seem to be in favor of 100% estate tax and divorcing school funding from property taxes. These, in themselves, would probably make a world of difference to income and outcome inequality in the US. Don't the rest of you agree? The antagonism is a chicken-or-egg issue, but not a particularly interesting one. Yes, as someone who grew up lower-middle class, I am in favor of a very high estate tax, and a complete overhaul of school funding. I suspect the Che Brigade have difficulty agreeing with these because they have been proposed by someone who is ideologically heterodox. quote:As for expatriation, the US already requires US citizens to pay taxes for income overseas, so that isn't anything new. Yes, and I believe Burma/Myanmar is the only other country in the world to do this (the US also includes LPRs [green-card holders] in taxation of income earned abroad). The US has an exemption for the first $97,600 earned abroad in a year, but after that an earner faces double taxation. Like I said, it's not uncommon for green-card holders who are not living in the US to relinquish their green cards, to avoid this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Spoiler alert: You can survive nicely more or less anywhere in the world on $100k untaxed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Spoiler alert: You can survive nicely more or less anywhere in the world on $100k untaxed. $100k doesn't go that far in places like London or Zurich or Dubai (you'll pay steep taxes in the first two), especially with a family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:$100k doesn't go that far in places like London or Zurich or Dubai (you'll pay steep taxes in the first two), especially with a family. No, it's actually a good amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Also tax rates in Zurich are comically low. Cost of living, however, is high.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:No, it's actually a good amount of money. Have you lived in London on less than $60k net? People do it for less, much less even, but it certainly doesn't make a person even remotely wealthy there. Disinterested posted:Also tax rates in Zurich are comically low. Cost of living, however, is high. My mistake about Swiss taxation. I've only worked in Switzerland as a contractor. Zurich is stupidly expensive, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Have you lived in London on less than $60k net? People do it for less, much less even, but it certainly doesn't make a person even remotely wealthy there. Living nicely isn't "wealthy".
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:$100k doesn't go that far in places like London or Zurich or Dubai (you'll pay steep taxes in the first two), especially with a family. Man, I could do so well with $100k. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Making 60k USD a year you'd be solidly middle class in London. You could live in a small, nice, place in a safe and affluent area. Not that it matters to this discussion.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:34
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That's, like, awesome. Yes, I might be gay - you might call me a human being. I'm sorry I distressed you enough to interrupt your circle-jerk over whether Marx is really cool; or really, REALLY cool. Scintillating debate you have, son. I'm a fag myself, so you should shut up. In any case, your entire schtick is being incredibly hostile and pretending that someone who disagrees with you on one thing disagrees on all things. If I acted like you, I'd be using your insistence that we should have no equality of outcomes because that impairs (ha-ha) "geniuses" like you (ha) to conclude that you disagree that the Holocaust was a bad thing. I doubt you'll understand why, because age not only doesn't guarantee brains, it also doesn't guarantee wisdom and you may well think legitimately that the only way to believe in 100% estate taxes and redistributive school funding is if you're "open to heterodoxy", which seems to mean sucking your dick. Well, I don't want syphilis, so I'll pass on the fellatio. EDIT: 100k doesn't make you rich anywhere in the rich countries unless you're single and devote all your disposable income to looking rich, but it's still enough for a good lifestyle.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
What a surprise, living on less that $100k/year prompts inchoate visions of "discomfort" in the gofers of of the true elite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Making 60k USD a year you'd be solidly middle class in London. You could live in a small, nice, place in a safe and affluent area. Housing a family of four in a safe and affluent area of London costs at least $36,000 a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:40
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Housing a family of four in a safe and affluent area of London costs at least $36,000 a year. Why do you keep offering lower and lower $ values by way of example, and what does it have to do with anything?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Housing a family of four in a safe and affluent area of London costs at least $36,000 a year. It's impossible to find a 2 bedroom apartment for under 3000 USD a month?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:45
|
|
Disinterested posted:Why do you keep offering lower and lower $ values by way of example, and what does it have to do with anything? He's saying that 100k US$ a year doesn't make you rich except in poor countries, in order to say something about how blah blah blah Che Brigade blah you shouldn't say anything nasty about the upper middle class or anyone within that august realm.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
The simplest solution and one that could hypothetically be accomplished by mere legislation and nonviolence is that the workers of each business enterprise are made its sole shareholders, with shares distributed according to some schema that takes into account seniority, skill, onerousness of position, etc. At a stroke this empowers the working class and eliminates the rentier class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:It's impossible to find a 2 bedroom apartment for under 3000 USD a month? It's unlikely in London, with safe and affluent as parameters. Feel free to prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Has anyone suggested  social democracy ITT yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:50
|
|