I feel so odd *disappears*

So, then...rich people having kids.  If we put a stop to that, then we wouldn't have any use for a death-tax.  As much as many people hate the death-tax, really, we don't need a hereditary aristocracy in our country.  Does it seem wrong that person be taxed just for dying?  Too bad!  Suck it up and pay Uncle Sam for all the good things he's done for you.  

It's bad enough that the current two parties have been ensconced as nearly permanent fixtures in American politics.  We don't need he Hilton family furnishing all of our future leaders.  Stopping them from having kids would seem to kill two birds with one stone (both questions about the death tax and aristocracy invading our government).  

So, new question.  Is it necessary, or even helpful to prevent rich people from having children, in order to avoid this?  It sure is a seductive thought, but so is attacking the reproductive freedoms of the lower classes, the disabled, and people we don't really want to look at all day long (at least to some people).  It seems to me that a progressive model of taxation would limit upper-class power, so that middle and even lower class persons can still get a piece of the pie.  Look at what trickle-down economics has done to our economy.  Every tax cut has had a tiny bump, and when the bump is over, the economy is worse than before taxes were cut.  Every decrease in regulation slows technological breakthroughs and increases attacks by hazardous industries on the physical health of people living near their facilities.  We can certainly protect ourselves from the wealthy without impinging on their rights as human beings.  Use trickle-up economics instead of trickle down.

This post was last modified: 02-17-2012 11:18 AM by Lang.

Conlang... "dribble down vs humanitarian welfare state for society's most useless members" debate could go on for weeks at a time without either side making any worthwhile arguments.

The main problem with Federal Government is that it is given nearly unlimited power from which to govern social issues that, from some angles... grants it the genuine appearance of a populist oligarchy.

In the US, right now, there is a lot of "I'm tired of my tax dollars going to your special interests!!!" and not many political candidates making promises to put a cork on well-paid lobbyists.

Many atheists and secularists (such as myself) are also scared sh!tless of a guy like Santorum coming to power, here. Yes, the same warhawk Italian crank that thought Americans' sexuality "isn't a private matter".


Yeah, I can see his appeal right away. Alas, devout Catholics are the new "values voters" in America. To that, I say "thank you", because it only makes me (and millions of others) more resolute in keeping America secular at the federal level. At the state level, my attitude is "I could give a -".
Alabama's governor has pissed off plenty on the left with his particularly strict immigration law and "rights of the unborn" law... but you know what? I strengthens neurodiversity, if only passively... and I have never cared for the politics devout catholics excepting my uncle and his family.

Guess which demographic makes the biggest hoot about "open borders" immigration? Well, they resolutely follow the Rat-Pope Benny around and (yes) they speak one of the Romance languages. I let everyone's imagination fill in the blanks. I've never cared for people who move to America just to work under the table. Everything else comes a distant second pet peeve to that, including not speaking any English.

You have to pay to die?  Which country does this happen in?
Alison 8o

This post was last modified: 02-17-2012 12:08 PM by Alison.

Con may be referring to a funeral/coffin tax.

Can I borrow your gun for a minute, Sky?  The neighbour's dog has been barking MONOTONOUSLY for the past three hours, and I'm just about to go beserk.  

In the old days on the farm, my dad would fire his double-barrelled shotgun into the air and shout "Sit down, you bastards!"
And the dogs did, usually by cowering in their kennels. They knew that when dad aimed his gun at anything running past and shot, that thing would stop running and drop.  Or in the case of birds, explode in a puff of feathers.

I wish the neighbour would take his damn dog for a walk, but he bought this big dog, housed it in his tiny yard, and leaves it there.  And the damn thing is going as Troppo as everybody else in this street who hears it.  

Alison

This post was last modified: 02-17-2012 12:22 PM by Alison.

In my working life I've known several people who have done the hard yards and several people who were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Some of the most worthless parasites I have had the displeasure of working with have been through the sort of education that only wealth and influence can provide.

If I look at Australia, the highest office in the land (Prime Minister) is generally taken by people who have attended state schools and done well through intelligence and hard work, rather than having someone to pay for an elite education and call in a few favours to land them the right sort of job.

Thanks... I'll stick to being socialitist 142857
I've been around blue-collar nonconformists/teenaged rabble-rousers who question authority at every thinkable turn and are plenty annoying in of themselves.
(in fact, they were a drain in the 90s district-based school system)

Aristocracy isn't as prominent in America as one might suggest, but we do have manipulators who break the system AND the economy simply because they can.


Lots of people have tired of it. Some still believe the problem is the government we have IMMENSE difficulty footing the bill for, and they are largely right to insist that, as it was the Central Bank that enabled much of our current woes to begin with.

(our welfare budget also far exceeds that of our military budget )

If you want to cut wasteful spending in the US, cut out the fraud and waste in the welfare system, as well as medicare and medicaid.

Obama said there was 80 billion in waste and fraud yearly in the medicare system alone

I wonder how they are doing in reducing that

at one time it was said they would have to hire one hundred thousand people to ferret that out

I've been around blue-collar nonconformists/teenaged rabble-rousers who question authority at every thinkable turn and are plenty annoying in of themselves.

Yes, there are those... and I probably avoided most of those types in school and work, which (I know) gives me a slightly bent perspective.

Actually, I think that refers to the inheritance tax. I forget what the threshold is (I know it's more than most of us will ever see), but if you inherit a substantial amount of money, there is a tax on it. The original purpose was to prevent dynastic wealth, but in recent decades, some millionaires have pushed hard to rename it the death tax.

firecrackers work well also.......dont know about their availability there

a loud fan in the bedroom might help

Thanks for that.  The dog finally shut up about midnight, after barking non-stop since about 7 pm.  Firecrackers are restricted here; I have a few left over from when they were still allowed, but they just make this dog even crazier and louder.  

He tries to attack us through the fence.  Scary, since he's a pit-bull cross and the whole damn fence shakes when he hits it repeatedly.  One day I'm scared the fence will give way ... but unfortunately the police apparently can't do anything until AFTER it manages to get at us. I hate to think what might happen if it gets out and attacks the kids going home past our place from primary school.  

I don't know why it is that people with tiny yards then get the biggest dogs.  Since we're on a corner block we have more land than most (the quarter acre block went the way of the dodo years ago and medium-density housing now rules) and the most we felt comfortable with for the space we had was a cat, who spend most of her time indoors asleep anyway!  

Anyway, this is waaaay off topic, so I'll leave it at that!

Alison

This post was last modified: 02-18-2012 02:07 AM by Alison.

I don't think you need to be rich to have kids.

(I haven't read the whole thread, I got bored after 5 pages but wanted to add something anyway)

I'm state educated. my theoretical kids will also be state educated (regardless of my income).

my little cousin is in private school. only mixing with rich kids and having parents who shower her with stuff mean she's shallow, selfish and materialistic. they never bothered to read her bedtime stories or follow through with discipline, she knows exactly how to manipulate them but is functionally illiterate. she's an 11 yo NT. rich people who breed lifestyle accessories they have no time to raise make terrible parents.

some people have mentioned population. rich people consume the most so (as population worries are linked to consumption) if anything it should be the other way around.

as for the idea that poor kids are at a disadvantage (UK & USA, the australians and others can speak for themselves) yes, they are. that's an argument for major reforms to increase social mobility, not telling people they must be selfish if they want kids.

incidentally, the "death tax" comes into most cases when the person owned their house in the uk (especially if they lived in london/south east). yes, it's still about 100 times more than most people would ever have in their bank account, but it can affect "normal" families. (I do support it, I just wanted to clear that up)

Good point, and I wouldn't hold my breath on "anticorruption" and "antifraud" stuff at the federal level. Figureheads of different stripes have been promising that for decades while having their hands in any number of metaphorical cookie jars the entire time.

Alas, our gov has succeeded in putting actual politicians in jail instead of just meaningless scapegoats (and not necessarily because of anticorruption initiatives), but to me... it is too little too late.


(addressing sky and the thread in general) Yet, to me... most of this thread wreaks of hollow, anti-wealth, "eat the rich" type ideology. So a person has enough money to feed 1 billion people for one year. Should they, and are they inherently obligated to give that money away?


... does having "enough money" to afford lots of food necessarily equate being able to feed many? Because of how economics (and investment bubbles) work, the answer is closer to "no" than most might automatically assume.


I find this thread moderately quaint because it reminds me how substance-free most "class warfare" discussions typically are, where class warfare= painting a highly adversarial portrait of upper-upper (non-employed inheritors and such), upper-middle (affluent-yet-employed), middle (white collars), lower-middle (blue collars) and lower classes (impoverished, can't shelter, feed or clothe themselves with their own means.)

If politics and economics for most of you is a question of "class warfare", I'll politely remind everyone what happens when society finally becomes geared towards an "eat the rich" mentality. French Revolution, Red Bolsheviks vs White Bolsheviks, invasion of the Western Roman Empire by Germanics, Symbionese Liberation Army, Evacuation of Saigon...

...so on and so forth, you basically make a platform for your own demise and the demise of most people you may have ever cared about.
"Eat the rich" is a catalyst for has been termed by Leon Trotsky a "Betrayed Revolution", where unscrupulous autocrats are put in charge and kill anyone that poses a threat to their new found authority.

Sure, you can "redistribute the wealth" even in the 21st century, but what if you are thought of with envy and resentment by less-privileged individuals? Is there any reason why your wealth and/or possessions shouldn't be redistributed?

Golden rule of ethics here, folks; only do to others what you would have them do to you.

And yes, the kid -or 'wealthy' family- with the most toys and biggest trust funds wins and has kids of their own... unless they overdose on cocaine, heroin, or the like first.