laklak wrote:We are more in agreement than we are disagreement, mrjonno. Regulation is absolutely necessary to prevent a resurgence of 19th century robber baron capitalism. The fly in the ointment is the scope of the regulations.

laklak wrote:There's always a lot of talk around here about "wealth inequality" and "redistribution". In this thread, particularly as it relates to inheritance or estate taxes. It isn't fair that that poncey git gets a couple of million quid when his daddy pops his clogs and I don't. So we'll take it from him and redistribute it to "the people", because, after all, he didn't "earn" that money. Well, neither did The People. I'll never understand how it's considered immoral to take unearned money from your parents but it isn't immoral to take unearned money from total strangers.

laklak wrote:A bit of both, actually. I realize I went a bit OT with the discussion of Cuba, but I think the two concepts are linked.

Beatsong wrote:Socialism is not based on taking and redistributing the wealth of individuals, as you claim. It's based on looking more deeply and honestly at the process by which we associate wealth with individuals in the first place, exactly what's involved in that association and on what basis we choose to continue making it.

Beatsong wrote:If you really want to consider wealth as "belonging" to an individual in an absolute sense, which is in no way subject to anything to do with society, then fine. All I have to do then is come along and steal all your wealth, and we don't have to have this conversation. Because of course you wouldn't dream of getting the police or judiciary involved, would you? That would just be SOCIETY telling me what do or don't have a right to own, and they've got no right to do that, have they?

azeed wrote:Equality is an enlightened step too far for many people who in their heart of hearts believe that the top dogs should own all the riches, possess all the power, and lead the pack while lesser, weaker dogs should have nothing and do what they are told.

Strontium Dog wrote:

azeed wrote:Equality is an enlightened step too far for many people who in their heart of hearts believe that the top dogs should own all the riches, possess all the power, and lead the pack while lesser, weaker dogs should have nothing and do what they are told.

Right, because it's not like there's a middle ground between the worthy owning everything and the hoi polloi owning nothing, is there

Strontium Dog wrote:Right, because it's not like there's a middle ground between the worthy owning everything and the hoi polloi owning nothing, is there

Strontium Dog wrote:Pretty sure I already did.

Meanwhile, some evidence to support your claim would be welcome.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/05/30/distribution-of-wealth-in-the-4th-most-unequal-country-in-the-world/

The Conservative party would be better off scrapping inheritance tax altogether rather than increasing the threshold to £1m, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested.

The thinktank said raising the threshold from its current level of £325,000 would mean only a small number of rich families would be obliged to pay the tax, raising very little revenue for the Treasury.

"In these circumstances more radical change should surely be considered. One option would be simply to abolish the tax," said the institute's Stuart Adam and Carl Emmerson in a report.

"It would simplify the tax system and get rid of an ineffective and unpopular tax which can be criticised in any case as a source of double taxation in cases where bequests are financed from earnings that have already been taxed."

Strontium Dog wrote:As experts they ought to be well enough acquainted with circular flow to avoid terms like "double taxation". I'd rather see them make the case for inheritance tax than indulge such populist nonsense.

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:If you really want to consider wealth as "belonging" to an individual in an absolute sense, which is in no way subject to anything to do with society, then fine. All I have to do then is come along and steal all your wealth, and we don't have to have this conversation. Because of course you wouldn't dream of getting the police or judiciary involved, would you? That would just be SOCIETY telling me what do or don't have a right to own, and they've got no right to do that, have they?

You do realise he'd shoot you, don't you?

Nice post though. Particularly the criticism of US Libertarianism.

laklak wrote:The only people I've ever seen arguing your strawman position are living in compounds out in the woods, waiting for the asteroid strike or Yellowstone eruption. They're the lunatic fringe, and their position is no more relevant to current Libertarian thought than Joe Stalin's musings are to U.S. Democrats or UK Laborites.

The points of contention are who decides what comprises the collective good and at what point the good of the many override the rights of the one. You draw your lines differently than I do. You think inherited wealth is bad, or if not actually "bad" than at least not so "good" as to insure it stays with the people it's willed to. You believe the collective has a better moral and ethical claim on that wealth than the hereditary beneficiaries. I disagree.