From the Department of We're All In It Together...

Explore the business, economy, finance and trade aspects of human society.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#101  Postby Agrippina » Mar 28, 2014 6:51 am

azeed wrote:
ED209 wrote:Rent it or buy it back from whom? Are you having ownership default to the gubbermint now?


Estate re-distribution has to be managed by somebody. It doesn't matter who but a government department would be an obvious choice for this kind of thing.

You are right there are details to work out but they are just details. For example, you might implement this policy by adding the property to the portfolio of a local housing association and granting a tenancy agreement with a right-to-buy option at the normal market rate which the tenancy-inheritor may choose to take up any time they like. Something like this could also work for a farm which has been in the same family for generations.


Yeah, take a look at Zimbabwe to see how well "redistribution" works. :roll:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#102  Postby Banzai! » Mar 28, 2014 9:49 am

azeed wrote:
Banzai! wrote:far left cloud cuckoo land ahoy!

Are people seriously advocating a system that when you are dead "everything" you own at death goes straight to the state?


Not what was said.

The idea was that the people inherit everything equally. Therefore everybody shares in economic success and your sons and daughters inherit more not less (unless you are rich). They will also inherit a healthy, functioning, democratic society with greater equality and therefore more opportunities for ordinary people.

This is a problem because...?


because its bollox,

Your use of "people" here means society as a whole i take it, that means administering through the institution set up to do things on behalf of everyone, in other words the government or as otherwise known, "the State".

"Communism" (or fascism in some guises I guess) in other words, good luck with that.
User avatar
Banzai!
 
Posts: 247

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#103  Postby minininja » Mar 28, 2014 10:46 am

Banzai! wrote:
azeed wrote:
Banzai! wrote:far left cloud cuckoo land ahoy!

Are people seriously advocating a system that when you are dead "everything" you own at death goes straight to the state?


Not what was said.

The idea was that the people inherit everything equally. Therefore everybody shares in economic success and your sons and daughters inherit more not less (unless you are rich). They will also inherit a healthy, functioning, democratic society with greater equality and therefore more opportunities for ordinary people.

This is a problem because...?


because its bollox,

Your use of "people" here means society as a whole i take it, that means administering through the institution set up to do things on behalf of everyone, in other words the government or as otherwise known, "the State".

"Communism" (or fascism in some guises I guess) in other words, good luck with that.

You may want to learn what communism actually is before claiming that equal inheritance = communism, otherwise you just look silly.

And when azeed said people inheriting everything equally, as specifically opposed to the state getting it, why do you still maintain that it must be the state?

Why couldn't inheritance be distributed equally to everyone? It could form the basis of a citizens income, steadily redistributing unused wealth rather than letting it move into extreme concentrations.

Actually I think there would need to be some incentive to stop people from simply trying to spend it all before they die - but even spending it is better than having extreme wealth accumulating in the hands one tiny group, generation after generation.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1532

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#104  Postby minininja » Mar 28, 2014 10:54 am

Agrippina wrote:
Yeah, take a look at Zimbabwe to see how well "redistribution" works. :roll:

Sorry but a single example of a policy that failed in a particular country facing particular problems is a really bad argument against the policy in general.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1532

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#105  Postby Banzai! » Mar 28, 2014 11:03 am

Cobblers, you are putting the total results of every single persons life into a "pot" for everyone else, what do you call it then?

Who administers it? Who decides who gets it? How much does each person get? What incentive is there for anyone to acheive anything? When do I get my free money?

Idealism is all very nice but often impractical.
User avatar
Banzai!
 
Posts: 247

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#106  Postby ED209 » Mar 28, 2014 11:03 am

:lol: so there's no such thing as private property, title to everything belongs to the state collective / re-distribution committee (exact details to be worked out) and citizens will be allowed to rent some apportionment of this while they are alive, but they may not bequeath anything to their descendents because it in't really theirs and all goes back into the pot, and controls are needed to stop them trying to spend (i.e. re-allocate) their borrowed wealth/possessions while they are alive in case that results in some undesirable outcome such as the distribution of wealth deviating from what has has been allocated centrally to each citizen.

jonno's right by the way, this thread should be back in NP&CA because it is about the torydems' desire to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m - a real-world policy - and because no one posts in economics, it smells of wee here.
It's been taught that your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own wicked thoughts.
User avatar
ED209
 
Posts: 10417

Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#107  Postby Sendraks » Mar 28, 2014 11:12 am

I've repeatedly told my mum and dad to spend what they have enjoying their lives rather than worry about leaving anything once they're gone. I dislike inheritance. I dislike the mentality that it fuels.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#108  Postby mrjonno » Mar 28, 2014 12:12 pm

Sendraks wrote:I've repeatedly told my mum and dad to spend what they have enjoying their lives rather than worry about leaving anything once they're gone. I dislike inheritance. I dislike the mentality that it fuels.



See me views on assisted suicide (inheritance tax is closely related to this)
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 21006
Age: 48
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#109  Postby mrjonno » Mar 28, 2014 12:16 pm

Actually I think there would need to be some incentive to stop people from simply trying to spend it all before they die


Why?, I hope my last pound goes on my last meal or a young (barely legal) prostitute if I'm single. It will be hit by VAT and redistributed to society and inheritance tax will be irrelevant
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 21006
Age: 48
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#110  Postby Agrippina » Mar 28, 2014 1:44 pm

minininja wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
Yeah, take a look at Zimbabwe to see how well "redistribution" works. :roll:

Sorry but a single example of a policy that failed in a particular country facing particular problems is a really bad argument against the policy in general.


How many examples do you need? Take property away from people who are making the country prosperous and the economy stable, hand it over to people who don't have a goddamned clue about what to do with it, and what do you expect? How many experiments with people's lives and livelihoods would you like to do before you figure out that the average person with average knowledge of very little, and very little knowledge about most things, isn't fit to run to the toilet, let alone run a country's economy.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#111  Postby ED209 » Mar 28, 2014 2:00 pm

I don't think there are any countries that tried abolishing the concept of private ownership to the extent being mooted but zimbabwe is a pretty good example of what happens when this is pursued to a limited extent. There is also stalin and the kulaks.

I would also like to suggest that torydem britain is unlikely to enact the most radical process of nationalisation and collectivisation of individual wealth that the world has ever seen and we are rather more likely to get the £1m across-the-board exemption instead :coffee:
It's been taught that your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own wicked thoughts.
User avatar
ED209
 
Posts: 10417

Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#112  Postby Agrippina » Mar 28, 2014 2:03 pm

ED209 wrote:I don't think there are any countries that tried abolishing the concept of private ownership to the extent being mooted but zimbabwe is a pretty good example of what happens when this is pursued to a limited extent. There is also stalin and the kulaks.

I would also like to suggest that torydem britain is unlikely to enact the most radical process of nationalisation and collectivisation of individual wealth that the world has ever seen and we are rather more likely to get the £1m across-the-board exemption instead :coffee:


Banzai! wrote:Cobblers, you are putting the total results of every single persons life into a "pot" for everyone else, what do you call it then?

Who administers it? Who decides who gets it? How much does each person get? What incentive is there for anyone to acheive anything? When do I get my free money?

Idealism is all very nice but often impractical.


Yeah, we have a lunatic here who has this idea that everything should go into a pot (also known as his back pocket), including all the mines, corporations, banks etc., and be run by the government (also known as his private piggy bank). However, the lunatic is in debt to the tax people for millions of rands that he didn't declare as income, and his properties have had to be sold to cover his debts, which of course didn't happen because the sale didn't realise enough to do that.

He doesn't believe (he claims) in private ownership of anything (except his Rolexes and fancy cars) and he makes promises about giving free everything to his followers, everything he's taken from people who do own private property and so on.

This is exactly what Mugabe did. He took over all the farms that were supplying the country with food, after the UN slapped sanctions on them because they declared independence without permission, and nationalised the banks, and corporations, then lined his pockets and those of his cronies with him and his wives going to Europe to shop because the dollar which eventually became like the money of Germany before WWII, and loaves of bread selling for millions of dollars, just couldn't support any industry in the country. So if he needs medical treatment he goes to China, and his wives (I don't know how many he has) shop for their clothes in Europe, while the people in the country don't have clothes, let alone to shop for. Now he's invited China in, to fix the problem. Oh boy, this is going to be fun! :roll:

I said earlier, I don't believe in inherited anything, insofar as titles and landed property go. I'm happy to pay taxes and to be just an ordinary citizen in a country full of ordinary people. I only want to be able to leave the little that I have to the people who helped me by paying for their own lives once they'd left school, and for understanding that I couldn't give them everything they wanted when they were at school. I'm not suggesting handing over Balmoral to my kids, just a tiny one-bedroomed cottage in a retirement village, FFS.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#113  Postby minininja » Mar 28, 2014 3:02 pm

I think a lot of people are talking at cross purposes here.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1532

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#114  Postby azeed » Mar 28, 2014 3:50 pm

Agrippina wrote:Yeah, take a look at Zimbabwe to see how well "redistribution" works.


In fact land reform in Zimbabwe has had a great deal of success.
azeed
 
Posts: 189

Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#115  Postby azeed » Mar 28, 2014 3:57 pm

ED209 wrote::lol: so there's no such thing as private property


Wrong. We can already see private property being successfully inherited all around us. I'm just adding more inheritors.

ED209 wrote:title to everything belongs to the state collective / re-distribution committee


Wrong. Does an executor own an estate..?

You did get the bit about no unearned income right though. This is a very important principle which would have a profound effect on society.

(Of course mass-inheritance is unearned income so strictly speaking I'm saying no unearned income unless we all get the same).
azeed
 
Posts: 189

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#116  Postby Banzai! » Mar 28, 2014 4:03 pm

gibberish, this concept of "unearned income" is simply erroneous, it isnt income at all, it's capital and yes the Estate does "own" the property in law, its a legal "person" in its own right, a form of trust administering the assets of the estate on behalf of the beneficiaries.
User avatar
Banzai!
 
Posts: 247

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#117  Postby Beatsong » Mar 28, 2014 4:04 pm

minininja wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
Yeah, take a look at Zimbabwe to see how well "redistribution" works. :roll:

Sorry but a single example of a policy that failed in a particular country facing particular problems is a really bad argument against the policy in general.


Well quite. Particularly when it was implemented by an insane corrupt dictator.
NEVER WRONG. ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM.
User avatar
Beatsong
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 7025

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#118  Postby azeed » Mar 28, 2014 4:21 pm

Zimbabwe's land reform ten years on: new study dispels the myths

Professor Bill Kinsey, of the Ruzivo Trust and the Free University, Amsterdam, commented: 'Whatever you thought about the land issue in Zimbabwe, be prepared to change your mind.'

Myth 1 - Land reform has been a total failure
Myth 2 - The beneficiaries have been largely political 'cronies'
Myth 3 - There is no investment in the new resettlements
Myth 4 - Agriculture is in complete ruins creating chronic food insecurity
Myth 5 - The rural economy has collapsed
azeed
 
Posts: 189

Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#119  Postby Agrippina » Mar 28, 2014 4:53 pm

azeed wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Yeah, take a look at Zimbabwe to see how well "redistribution" works.


In fact land reform in Zimbabwe has had a great deal of success.


You think?

When last did your currency have billion-unit notes?

Look, I understand that eventually, in the long run the small-time farmers will achieve commercial success, possibly in a couple of generations. However, in the meantime, in the past 15 or so years, a generation of people have had to go hungry or flee across the borders to find work and a way to survive. Big dramatic changes do cause hardship, but they're not necessary. Mugabe could've rather asked that small pieces of farms be given to workers and that they be taught how to run them productively. That's a far better way of dealing with the problem than simply killing the owners and giving the farm to people who don't know what to do with them.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: From the Department of We're All In It Together...

#120  Postby ED209 » Mar 28, 2014 5:01 pm

azeed wrote:
ED209 wrote::lol: so there's no such thing as private property


Wrong. We can already see private property being successfully inherited all around us. I'm just adding more inheritors.


No, there'd be no such thing as private property. If I can't transfer ownership of 'my' assets either before or after my death than I don't own them. I may have been granted a right to to use them but that isn't ownership, at best it's a leasing arrangement. It would be impossible to buy anything in such a regime, or sell anything since the proceeds are equally worthless. And how do you think you might persuade everyone to give up everything they own in the first place?


azeed wrote:
ED209 wrote:title to everything belongs to the state collective / re-distribution committee


Wrong. Does an executor own an estate..?


It's a funny sort of executor that disregards the wishes of the deceased altogether, instead arbitrarily handing out the estate to the temporary custody of whoever it likes knowing that inevitably it will revert back to them again.

You are essentially calling for a return to feudalism where everyone is an equally possession-less peasant in thrall to the local lord.


azeed wrote:You did get the bit about no unearned income right though. This is a very important principle which would have a profound effect on society.

(Of course mass-inheritance is unearned income so strictly speaking I'm saying no unearned income unless we all get the same).



I don't recall saying anything about unearned income, let alone something that you would agree with, perhaps I made some elaborate typo :dunno:
It's been taught that your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own wicked thoughts.
User avatar
ED209
 
Posts: 10417

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Economics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest