A real tipping point in America...is about to be reached?

[rootfingers]

This is about as likely to happen as a truly "free market" but as a thought exercise lets think about a society that to create a free economic system gives all its citizens some number of currency at some point. Lets say for arguments sake that the time this compensation happens will be based on the age, 25. The compensation lets say amounts to 100k dollars. This society would spend considerable resources teaching about all the different ways a person could approach receiving this sizable investment. When life is over all your dollars go back into the system. No inheritance. Is this fair?

 

[In~Plain~Site]

It's a nice concept,fly in the ointment is that everyone's potential is different ....should we compensate for that too?

Let's slow down the most agile parts of our formation to compensate for the weakest link, as it were...Darwin be damned.

Oh it's a plan alright

We may not be inherently equal because of *genetic accidents but we should make it our mission to level the playing field as much as possible and that mostly includes helping people reach their fullest potential no matter the accident of their genetic make-up. It also means limiting some extra smart or strong person's ability to take over a market with greed and self interest by regulating the market place, thus destroying the libertarian utopian idea of a "free market" so that we can all have a more fair shake.

*Accidents of genetics include but are not limited to wealth of family/economic circumstance, race, IQ or learning ability, health factors etc.

 

[zenoonez]

To clarify, I mean that we should create legislation that puts limits on greed. Those extra "gifted" lets say, will have the tools to rise to the top of any marketplace they are in. The staggering and growing wealth gap should make apparent to everyone at this point there is not a limit to the unchecked greed of some people. This legislation can take the form of antitrust laws absolutely. Would also mean at least having a conversation about the benefits of raising capital gains taxes to something like 90%.

I don't have children and can't give much advice on how people should relate to their children in the way you mean, I think.

I don't think ambition or in your words, greed is a bad thing in all cases. People do what they love and if they love doing it enough that they are great at it, then so be it. I do believe in a progressive tax bracket with a upper end of taxation at or around 45-50%. As to capital gains taxation, I am in favor of the capital gains rate being equivalent to your income tax rate. What I mean is that if you are very poor and are investing your money long term I dont think we should be punishing you for making wise financial decisions. In fact, below a certain threshold of annual income tax, I am not sure we should even tax capital gains because I believe having a larger middle class and a smaller lower class would be a good thing in our country. After that point, capital gains taxes simply should mirror the progressive income tax rate.

This is about as likely to happen as a truly "free market" but as a thought exercise lets think about a society that to create a free economic system gives all its citizens some number of currency at some point. Lets say for arguments sake that the time this compensation happens will be based on the age, 25. The compensation lets say amounts to 100k dollars. This society would spend considerable resources teaching about all the different ways a person could approach receiving this sizable investment. When life is over all your dollars go back into the system. No inheritance. Is this fair?

I don't believe in stealing people's money when they die, no. I believe in leaving something for your children, grandchildren, whomever. I don't think the government providing a handout is the answer to be perfectly honest. I think it is a better idea to allow people to achieve a better financial situation by making it advantageous to do so in the form of tax incentives. I also believe however, that the social safety net that we provide should be a temporary resource for those who are less fortunate. For instance, public housing could only be used for 12-24 months at a time and have a cap at say 10 years total for adult users. The same thing for food stamps, temporary duration and cap on total time that can be spent receiving benefits. I also think reforms to our prison system would be advantageous to us as a society, using prison labor to provide low cost labor to both municipalities and private industry. If the inmate will not work they should be in their cell 23 hrs a day and have no TV or other benefits and be fed a terribly unappetizing yet nutritious gruel. It will never happen but hey, sounds like a good start to me.

 

[deadpup]

well as of last week, i can still buy bullets in bulk......
with this in mind, fuckem , ill do what i want.
talk all you want about 2012, war n peace, getting busted, ect.
nothing will ever change w/o blood shed and the people willing to spill it
for the sake of their children, and the generations after.
hate on me all you want... it is what it is.... human fucking nature... to destroy

 

[rootfingers]

I don't think ambition or in your words, greed is a bad thing in all cases. People do what they love and if they love doing it enough that they are great at it, then so be it. I do believe in a progressive tax bracket with a upper end of taxation at or around 45-50%. As to capital gains taxation, I am in favor of the capital gains rate being equivalent to your income tax rate. What I mean is that if you are very poor and are investing your money long term I dont think we should be punishing you for making wise financial decisions. In fact, below a certain threshold of annual income tax, I am not sure we should even tax capital gains because I believe having a larger middle class and a smaller lower class would be a good thing in our country. After that point, capital gains taxes simply should mirror the progressive income tax rate.



I don't believe in stealing people's money when they die, no. I believe in leaving something for your children, grandchildren, whomever. I don't think the government providing a handout is the answer to be perfectly honest. I think it is a better idea to allow people to achieve a better financial situation by making it advantageous to do so in the form of tax incentives. I also believe however, that the social safety net that we provide should be a temporary resource for those who are less fortunate. For instance, public housing could only be used for 12-24 months at a time and have a cap at say 10 years total for adult users. The same thing for food stamps, temporary duration and cap on total time that can be spent receiving benefits. I also think reforms to our prison system would be advantageous to us as a society, using prison labor to provide low cost labor to both municipalities and private industry. If the inmate will not work they should be in their cell 23 hrs a day and have no TV or other benefits and be fed a terribly unappetizing yet nutritious gruel. It will never happen but hey, sounds like a good start to me.

Ambition is not synonymous with greed, you are trying to redefine what I wrote to fit your ideals. I think ambition is awesome, all around us, and greed is probably the least likely motivator of ambition.

Why stopt at 45-50% why is the right number?

As matter of compromise I could get behind 45-50% for now with the exclusion for people under a generous threshold. Generous will be a very difficult number to find though.

"Stealing people's money after they die" is an interesting way to put it. You are saying you deserve all your earthly possessions to still belong to the "concept of you" after you are no longer living? I understand the idea of wanting to leave some security for your family after you die but why would they need it?

Its not a handout its just creating an economy in a different way. We are the masters of the thing after all, right? So why not be open to approaching it differently?

I won't even get into the social aspects of this economic convo. I imagine my sympathies lie in a different place than yours on those aspects of life and will come into play when you answer the question I asked earlier about why would your family need your money after you die?

 

[rootfingers]

It's a nice concept,fly in the ointment is that everyone's potential is different ....should we compensate for that too?

Let's slow down the most agile parts of our formation to compensate for the weakest link, as it were...Darwin be damned.

Oh it's a plan alright

Why would we want to model our economic system on Darwin?

 

[rootfingers]

I am living proof that your idea of human nature is wrong. I have no desire to destroy. Quite to the contrary, I want to build and create.

well as of last week, i can still buy bullets in bulk......
with this in mind, fuckem , ill do what i want.
talk all you want about 2012, war n peace, getting busted, ect.
nothing will ever change w/o blood shed and the people willing to spill it
for the sake of their children, and the generations after.
hate on me all you want... it is what it is.... human fucking nature... to destroy

 

[zenoonez]

Ambition is not synonymous with greed, you are trying to redefine what I wrote to fit your ideals. I think ambition is awesome, all around us, and greed is probably the least likely motivator of ambition.

Why stopt at 45-50% why is the right number?

As matter of compromise I could get behind 45-50% for now with the exclusion for people under a generous threshold. Generous will be a very difficult number to find though.

"Stealing people's money after they die" is an interesting way to put it. You are saying you deserve all your earthly possessions to still belong to the "concept of you" after you are no longer living? I understand the idea of wanting to leave some security for your family after you die but why would they need it?

Its not a handout its just creating an economy in a different way. We are the masters of the thing after all, right? So why not be open to approaching it differently?

I won't even get into the social aspects of this economic convo. I imagine my sympathies lie in a different place than yours on those aspects of life and will come into play when you answer the question I asked earlier about why would your family need your money after you die?

Ambition is not synonymous with greed. I agree. However, I am greedy because I am ambitious. I want to have certain things, those things cost lots of money, therefore my greed is driven by my ambition. I don't think greed is bad. As to the 45-50%, it just feels comfortable to me. I think if you make 60 million a year I think giving 50% of what you make over a certain threshold is reasonable in my mind. I don't think more is necessarily required to make our situation better as a nation. Also as you increase your tax rate you approach a point at which people are simply not willing to work any more, I don't think we need a tax rate that high nor do I think it would be beneficial.

As to the stealing of belongings, that is exactly what it is. I believe in the concept of personal ownership of things including wealth. Just because a person dies, doesn't mean that the government should own the sum of their work, what claim does the government have to that wealth? It was the wealth of the person and they should be able to do with it as they see fit including leaving it to their heirs, donating it to non profits, or donating it to the government. However, that decision is theirs to make and express through their will.

Why do you think that giving a 25 year old 100,000 dollars is a good idea? Do you want to pay taxes to give it to someone who doesn't necessarily need or deserve it? I am open to being swayed here but you are not being particularly persuasive at the moment. I just don't think giving people something for nothing would be beneficial for us as a society.

As to why my family would need my wealth after I die, in all likelihood, they will not need it but it is my wealth and property to deed as I see fit. I see no reason behind the government's claim to own the wealth of my making beyond the taxation we are speaking of now.

 

[rootfingers]

Ambition is not synonymous with greed. I agree. However, I am greedy because I am ambitious. I want to have certain things, those things cost lots of money, therefore my greed is driven by my ambition. I don't think greed is bad. As to the 45-50%, it just feels comfortable to me. I think if you make 60 million a year I think giving 50% of what you make over a certain threshold is reasonable in my mind. I don't think more is necessarily required to make our situation better as a nation. Also as you increase your tax rate you approach a point at which people are simply not willing to work any more, I don't think we need a tax rate that high nor do I think it would be beneficial.


As to the stealing of belongings, that is exactly what it is. I believe in the concept of personal ownership of things including wealth. Just because a person dies, doesn't mean that the government should own the sum of their work, what claim does the government have to that wealth? It was the wealth of the person and they should be able to do with it as they see fit including leaving it to their heirs, donating it to non profits, or donating it to the government. However, that decision is theirs to make and express through their will.

Why do you think that giving a 25 year old 100,000 dollars is a good idea? Do you want to pay taxes to give it to someone who doesn't necessarily need or deserve it? I am open to being swayed here but you are not being particularly persuasive at the moment. I just don't think giving people something for nothing would be beneficial for us as a society.


As to why my family would need my wealth after I die, in all likelihood, they will not need it but it is my wealth and property to deed as I see fit. I see no reason behind the government's claim to own the wealth of my making beyond the taxation we are speaking of now.

I need to figure out how multiquote works.

You say you are greedy because of your ambition. Then you say you want things and need money to get them (this I take as greed or wanting things beyond need). Then you say your greed is driven by you ambition. Are you saying you want things because you are ambitious? Sorry that sounds opposite to me. I see that it is possible to be ambitious and not greedy so you stating what you did doesn't help me see your point.

So how long does your hold on your possessions last after you die? And why couldn't you give away your possessions in life? Would work pretty well for people who know they will die I imagine. Thats a flaw there I see now. Can I vote after I die? Can I still operate a vehicle legally? Why should I be allowed to make decisions regarding my finances after I die?

Idk if it should be an age really. Maybe you have to pass tests? But, there are many 25 year old that would be fine with that sort of investment. Not sure if taxes are necessary in this system.

 

[zenoonez]

I need to figure out how multiquote works.

You say you are greedy because of your ambition. Then you say you want things and need money to get them (this I take as greed or wanting things beyond need). Then you say your greed is driven by you ambition. Are you saying you want things because you are ambitious? Sorry that sounds opposite to me. I see that it is possible to be ambitious and not greedy so you stating what you did doesn't help me see your point.

So how long does your hold on your possessions last after you die? And why couldn't you give away your possessions in life? Would work pretty well for people who know they will die I imagine. Thats a flaw there I see now. Can I vote after I die? Can I still operate a vehicle legally? Why should I be allowed to make decisions regarding my finances after I die?

Idk if it should be an age really. Maybe you have to pass tests? But, there are many 25 year old that would be fine with that sort of investment. Not sure if taxes are necessary in this system.

Multiquote is beside the quick reply button but it doesn't work within a post, it is for quoting multiple posts.

I am ambitious, meaning I have things that I think that I can do, that I want to do, that I don't have the means to do. I am greedy for money to enable me to make these things that I want to do that I can't do for lack of means, a reality.

You don't make decisions after you die, you make them before you die. I make the decisions to leave my house to my youngest daughter and my vacation home to my son and my yacht to my older daughter. The point is that you worked to obtain that wealth and what you choose to have done with it upon your death is your choice as the owner of those things. If you want to give it away, then so be it, if you don't then do with it what you will. The point is that it is yours and those decisions are yours to make and the government should have no right to decide what is done with your property unless you give it to the government. Now estate taxes, if they are needed, then so be it. I actually think they are a perfectly reasonable way to battle the wealth gap.

As to the handout, how are you going to get the 100k to give to someone without taking it from someone else? You just going to print out 100k for everyone turning 25 this year? Money would be worthless. I still see no reason why we should give 25 yr olds 100k. Why? That is my question.

 

[rootfingers]

No wonder I couldn't make that work.

Money is worthless in my opinion. That we base our society on it the way we do i see as a cause or symptom of our sick society.

Here is the point I think, why base our economic policies on greed or fear or some other negative human trait? Why not figure out how to base economics on the more positive aspects of human nature? Strength from close/small society, strength from compassion, strength from helping other people. To me, these things seem like better places to begin construction rather than greed or fear. Ambition I think plays better to the positive starting points as well.

Anyway, I'm going to the woods to get some fresh air and enjoy this beautiful day. See ya around later.

 

[Tuhder]

I hate to disagree but we are not all equal. As you have pointed out there will always be people who are smarter, stronger, faster, better at doing something. The idea of equality is not that no one is better at anything than anyone else but that in their human essence no man is better than another which is why we should be granted the same rights under the law. However, if there is no social contract or law upon which to depend equality means nothing because there is no way for your rights to be systematically protected but by your own execution of violence. Furthermore we know that we are programmed to be okay with being unequal via our physiological preferences in the opposite sex. Sexual selection is evolution(and inequality) at its best, I choose to mate with choice d because they will give my offspring the best chance of survival. So I guess that I don't disagree that we are all created equal in the eyes of the law/Deity and in the idealism that all of our lives are precious and mine no more than yours, but to think that such an idea would matter after the fall of money which would essentially be a post apocalyptic society, I think is overly optimistic at best and is more likely naive. In anarchy or our state of nature, all rights and no rights simultaneously exist in that you may act in any way you desire unabated but for the fact that your fellow man may act upon the same principle of freedom and restrict you of your rights.

As a final note, those of you who wish to live in a world without money, you may create a microcosm where money doesn't exist, that is up to you. There are hundreds of communes throughout the world where you may choose to live a life altogether different and theoretically better than the one you lead now. Granted the commune as a whole will have to participate in the world of capitalism if they live in a locality where property taxes must be paid or if something must be purchased from outside of the commune. So if a world without money is what you want, then by all means go live on a commune, it will change your life, it is a great experience.

Anyways, just my 2 cents on the subject. Peace.

Excellent points, You agree on the simplistic level. I was just talking on the simple truth, That we all share a common ground, We are all made of the same. Its not naive to think that we would band together and help each other. You will have those killing and robbing and that will be normal but I believe that the mass of the population would be civil and we would all be trying to restore an economic base between each other.

 

[Dudesome]

Eh another great thread in a mainstream style. Well guess those are just starting to pop

Soon we are going to see much more of them.

I wonder if I was the first one to start a thread like that with the "As the world is collapsing MJ is to thrive" thread Right before the icmag government started it's supression of the topic

Anyways. My point is: Lets just sit and see how many those are are still asleep get wiped out. Those who are awake shall receive a great life experience to live through times like these.

Peace, consciousness and awareness to all of those who are awake.

 

[Dudesome]

No wonder I couldn't make that work.

Money is worthless in my opinion. That we base our society on it the way we do i see as a cause or symptom of our sick society.

you mean currency is worthless right? Real money is by no means worthless.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

just watched the hunter s thompson documentary its crazy how many parallels are going on between today and the sixties.....they were protesting over similar things, end the war, end corporate and elite greed....HST was almost sure that change was gonna happen, he fought his fight through journalism and is a big reason why jimmy carter got elected.....

however at the end of the day, when most thought change was just on the brink, things reverted back to normal for the government cronies, and now we are right back to where we were in the sixties...unjust wars and a population that is angry at the government..

back then the government even KILLED protesters, whcih isnt happening now...its almost as if they mock the occupy movement because they know things will never change... the police state is MORE powerful than it was in the sixties...and the passion in the protesters is no where near as powerful or big....


im so digusted with this years presidential picks...its a disgrace, they are purposely muting ron paul (just like they did to McGovern versus Nixon) and offering the same puppet POS in Obama or an even worse candidate that the right wings are offering who will for SURE take us back into the bush era of war profiteering, expanding the federal government and the police state, and slowly chipping away state and constitutional rights..

 

[SpasticGramps]

they were protesting over similar things, end the war, end corporate and elite greed.

Interesting how the movement was coopted and eventually became the establishment.

We are still in a state of continuous war, still run by corporations, nothing changed. If this movement can't separate itself from the establishment then it will be a 1960's failed movement redux.

 

[rootfingers]

The counterculture revolution that mostly took place in the 1960's was by no means a failure and the successes of that movement continue to protect and inspire the people today.

These days we have the internet and will make an even bigger splash. You thought '69 was fun and full of hippies? Just wait till the summer of '12. Things are going to get hot next summer and I'm betting the level of involvement from the people will be much higher and more active. There are strong forces already mobilizing for the election next fall and sparks will fly.

 

[guest456mpy]

The counterculture revolution that mostly took place in the 1960's was by no means a failure and the successes of that movement continue to protect and inspire the people today.

These days we have the internet and will make an even bigger splash. You thought '69 was fun and full of hippies? Just wait till the summer of '12. Things are going to get hot next summer and I'm betting the level of involvement from the people will be much higher and more active. There are strong forces already mobilizing for the election next fall and sparks will fly.

As one who was personally involved with the 60's counterculture beginnings I wish you all success. For the record the 60's movement was already diluted and "acknowledged as dead" in 1968. The establishment had already assimilated and diffused the look and feel and was using these tools and means for their own purposes by then.


H.G.

 

[rootfingers]

Maybe "dead" to you but it lives in the human spirit and as is evident in culture of today, making a come back.

 

[Tarheal]

I can sense something in the works going on in this world. I think next year will be very revealing as to what it is.