Bernie Sanders "Democratic Socialist"

[mlsv2f]

A common theme of his narrative is that taxation in the 1930-1950 was much higher than it was now, and thus we should go back to that time period.

 

 

This is in fact a lie 

 

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

 

Tax revenues from 1930-1950 averaged about 9.2% of GDP

 

In 2014, it was about 17.5%

 

 

Granted, even when you point this out to people, they move the goalpost, call you names, ect.

 

Anyway, He seems to be getting a lot of national attention, the media loves him, and it seems they have turned their back on Hilary and double downed on Bernie.

 

I thought we could have a discussion on the illogical and sophist nature of his arguments

[LovePrevails]

he seems to be a justice warrior I think he genuinely believes his policies are for the good of the people, does not understand economics.

[mlsv2f]

I don't know about that. To me, the perception that you are there to help people is the entire cloak that socialist politicians hide under.

 

He poses as an "independent" but is going for the democratic primary ticket. At least the other crooks are openly part of the two party system, instead of pretending not to be apart of it.

 

As stated above, he is using misleading information to convince people to raise taxes. Either he is lying, or is he is not checking the facts he is using to create new laws, either way, a person with good intentions typically doesn't do such a thing.

 

He speaks out against career politicians and wants term limits and career limits in politics, but he himself is a career politician.

 

Someone that high up in government surely knows how things operate, and so I just have a hard time believing he is THAT naive.

 

Additionally, when you look at some of his statements, they reek of sophistry.

 

"We have a responsibility to leave the planet better for our children" Anyone who attacks this statement is going to get accused of disliking children. When in fact, This is a guy who advocates creating large national debt that those children will have to pay off

 

Perhaps I'm wrong though, I would be perfectly willing to listen to an argument otherwise

[Mister Mister]

"We have a responsibility to leave the planet better for our children" Anyone who attacks this statement is going to get accused of disliking children. When in fact, This is a guy who advocates creating large national debt that those children will have to pay off

 

  No you see, he can fix the deficit by making the rich pay their fair share, all while ending global warming with regulations, and giving free healthcare and PhD's to everyone

[mlsv2f]

  No you see, he can fix the deficit by making the rich pay their fair share, all while ending global warming with regulations, and giving free healthcare and PhD's to everyone

Even for a politician, he LOVES using terms like "fair share", "common sense", "progressive agenda" and "responsibility". 

[Alan C.]

A Bernie Sanders presidency would probably bring down the system faster than that of any other candidate.

 

My advice is to get your finances in order and stay healthy.

[mlsv2f]

A Bernie Sanders presidency would probably bring down the system faster than that of any other candidate.

 

My advice is to get your finances in order and stay healthy.

That's a good way to put it, perhaps I just need to get past my pride and realize that a total system failure is what it would take for people to learn and accept the coming storm.

[fractional slacker]

The left is pushing for Trump. Let's hope the right can get Sanders the nomination.  That would make for quite a show.

[Thomasio]

Sanders has one gigantic advantage over all other politicians.

He believes what he is saying and he has a 35 years long consistent history.

Where other politicians got caught lying, like Bush lying to the entire world to initiate war in Iraq, where other politicians run gigantic propaganda campaigns nearly independent of what they really want, Sanders has never made a secret of his beliefs, he is following his ideas and he speaks his mind.

I believe the people in America are simply sick and tired of people like Hillary Clinton who pretend to be democrats, but act as if they wanted to overtake the conservatives on the right side.

Sanders gains popularity because he is a real person.

Whether or not his ideas make sense is another story, I don't want to go into that part.

[Alan C.]

Bernie Sanders says he'd raise taxes

 

"Yes, we have to raise individual tax rates substantially higher than they are today because almost all of the new income is going to the top 1%," Sanders said.

 

"And yes, those folks and large corporations will have to pay under a Sanders administration more in taxes so that we can use that revenue to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create the jobs we need, make sure that every kid who has the ability is able to get a college education in America because public colleges and public universities will be tuition-free," he said.

 

Asked about the type of people who would make up his cabinet, Sanders ticked off the names of three liberal economists: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz and former Bill Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Asked about the type of people who would make up his cabinet, Sanders ticked off the names of three liberal economists: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman,

 

Head... hurts...

[Thomasio]

Bernie Sanders says he'd raise taxes

 

Take a closer look at the taxes he wants to raise, then compare to your personal wealth.

When you then discover that you personally wouldn't have to pay a dime more, but would be a net beneficiary of the changes, then think again, whether or not you prefer to be an advocate for the super rich at your own expense.

[mlsv2f]

Take a closer look at the taxes he wants to raise, then compare to your personal wealth.

When you then discover that you personally wouldn't have to pay a dime more, but would be a net beneficiary of the changes, then think again, whether or not you prefer to be an advocate for the super rich at your own expense.

 

So as long as a politician steals from others, its okay for me to support it?

 

 

 

Further, his massive spending will increase debts and cause more inflation, which effects everyone. 

 

He will put in an executive order jamming min wage to 12-15 dollars, causing prices to rise and more inflation.

 

He wants a mandated, single payer health care system. If you make more money than probably 55/60th percentile, chances are, you will be overpaying here as well.

 

As a married couple in the 33% bracket, I think its safe to say that I will be paying more.

 

If you think hes only going to change life for the wealthiest of the wealthy, and everyone else will benefit, you're drinking the same kool-aid the Greeks did when they elected their current communist leader, who is now taxing people who make 48k a year at 42%.

 

Finally, the premise that "socialist policies help society" is false.  Long term, no one is going to be "beneficiaries". This can been seen all over the world in the past century. The most successful countries that have quasi-socialist policies are the Nordics. When we compare the average of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark,  they have a slightly lower median income to the USA , with 33% higher prices and higher taxes. Meaning that even in these "paradises" people have a fraction of the disposable income they do here on average, which means people have less money to save/invest and are more dependent on the decisions of the politicians.

 

No thanks

[Thomasio]

Oh well, you're confusing quite a lot of things.

 

First of all there are two options, with or without government.

I'm aware many people in this forum want no government at all, but that's a different topic.

For this topic we're discussing only the option with government and how different forms of government with different policies give a different outcome in expenses for the people.

Therefore you may drop your "stealing" and consider the fact, as long as there is a government, taxes are required and all we can discuss is, how the burden of taxes shall be spread across the population.

Right now the heaviest part of the burden of taxes is on the middle class, while the top incomes pay far less, in many cases not only in percentage of income but literally in total amount.

You remember the statement by Warren Buffet, saying he pays less taxes than his secretary?

The official form of government is democracy and that means the majority of the people decides whom to tax how much.

Quite logic, while the majority is the middle class and the poor, they will vote for higher taxes on the rich.

Whether or not that's fair is again another story, if you want to change that and legalize huge tax cuts for the rich, you first have to terminate democracy and go from there.

The big question there is, why would the vast majority of people in a society vote for terminating a system they benefit from and prefer a system that benefits a tiny minority of super wealthy.

 

Take a look at European countries who have a single payer health care system, like Germany.

Total cost of health care in Germany is less than half of what Americans spend while at same time this covers ALL Germans rather than a shrinking amount of Americans.

If you believe your current system is better, you will have to come up with some kind of argument, why partial coverage costs in total twice as much as full coverage.

 

The concerns of the middle class they might have to pay more in case the rich are taxed more is the plain success of the propaganda of those rich ones.

There is no logic whatsoever in believing taxing the rich would increase taxes on the middle class, just the opposite, if you don't tax the rich, the middle class has to cover the burden of supporting the poor, whether through public welfare or in form of charity.

If you tax the rich they would pay for the poor and that would relieve the middle class.

 

Yes, of course relieving the middle class of some of their tax burden, increasing the minimum wage and all that would increase inflation, but why would that be a bad thing?

What is all the QE about the FED is doing?

Isn't all the money flushed into the markets meant to counteract the deflation that arises from shrinking wages?

Inflation is what the national debt needs, to dissolve itself over time.

Do you really prefer to pay an increasing amount of your taxes for interest on your national debt, while roads and bridges all over the country are falling apart, or would it make more sense to pay higher wages, get more people in good jobs, rebuild the infrastructure of the country and get a solution for the national debt for free at the same time?

 

See it like this:

IFFFF you would double ALL wages and IFFF that would result in doubling all prices, that would still decrease the national debt by 50% and therefore all taxes all Americans currently pay for interest on the national debt would be cut in half.

[Alan C.]

Take a closer look at the taxes he wants to raise, then compare to your personal wealth. When you then discover that you personally wouldn't have to pay a dime more, but would be a net beneficiary of the changes, then think again, whether or not you prefer to be an advocate for the super rich at your own expense.

 

Bernie Sanders and his ilk are nothing but skidmarks in the toilet bowl of humanity. They're a bunch of frustrated losers who know nothing about anything, posses no marketable skills, and are driven by envy and spite.

 

How do you figure that I'd be a net beneficiary of rich people being expropriated?

 

I have a good career, earn a decent living, and live comfortably (better than my parents) because people who were born before me accumulated large quantities of capital and built something with it.

[Thomasio]

How do you figure that I'd be a net beneficiary of rich people being expropriated?

 

I have a good career, earn a decent living, and live comfortably (better than my parents) because people who were born before me accumulated large quantities of capital and built something with it.

 

Fairly easy.

If you were one of the beneficiaries of tax cuts for the rich, you'd be at some beach on the Maledives and not posting in a forum like this.

You just don't know how much you're worth compared to what you're getting.

You're mistaking hard working small business for rich, while the super rich don't work at all.

As Stefan pointed out in one of his videos, those super rich people who aren't even willing to do some weeding after the hard working people have cleared the ground for more freedom are plain parasites and those are the ones receiving the biggest tax breaks.

 

 

Calculating how much you're worth is actually fairly easy, but for some reason nobody actually does that calculation.

Take your country's GDP, divide by the amount of existing jobs including entrepreneurs and divide that by the average 4 times money changes hands before taxes and fees have returned it to the state and you'll get the average net income per earner.

The USA had a GDP of $16.77 Billion in 2013, while there were about 130 million jobs and about 6 million entrepreneurs and self employed.

 

$16.77 trillion / 136 million / 4 = $30,800 average net annual income per earner.

For a family with two adults where one cares for the kids and does (if any) only part time, that means an average annual net income of $61,600.

The fact the average annual income of workers is far less than that simply means, there are super rich people taking the biggest piece of the cake, leaving the vast majority of people with very little, which not only shows inequality, but shows an unfair spread.

Anthing from 70% to 150% of the average is considered middle class, or in other words, up to a net income of $92,400 per year, a family cannot be considered rich, let alone super rich, therefore wouldn't be effected by "taxing the rich", let alone the top 0.1%.

 

You talk about a decent living and large quantities of capital.

May I ask, how much would you consider a large quantity of capital?

Unless you own at least a billion, sorry, you're not rich enough to compete with the big boys.

Even if you earn over 500k net per year, you're still extremely likely not effected by taxing the rich, just the opposite, giving tax breaks to the rich and putting the burden on the middle class cuts big time into your personal income.

 

Again, terminating government and leaving it up to everyone to care for himself is a different story, we're just discussing here different forms of government, excluding the option of no government.

Still, just out of curiosity I'd love to see your estimate of how much you would earn if there were no government and how much things like your health care would cost you, given the fact that without a single payer system you're already paying twice as much as single payer systems costs.

[mlsv2f]

Fairly easy.

If you were one of the beneficiaries of tax cuts for the rich, you'd be at some beach on the Maledives and not posting in a forum like this.

You just don't know how much you're worth compared to what you're getting.

You're mistaking hard working small business for rich, while the super rich don't work at all.

As Stefan pointed out in one of his videos, those super rich people who aren't even willing to do some weeding after the hard working people have cleared the ground for more freedom are plain parasites and those are the ones receiving the biggest tax breaks.

 

 

Calculating how much you're worth is actually fairly easy, but for some reason nobody actually does that calculation.

Take your country's GDP, divide by the amount of existing jobs including entrepreneurs and divide that by the average 4 times money changes hands before taxes and fees have returned it to the state and you'll get the average net income per earner.

The USA had a GDP of $16.77 Billion in 2013, while there were about 130 million jobs and about 6 million entrepreneurs and self employed.

 

$16.77 billion / 136 million / 4 = $30,800 average net annual income per earner.

For a family with two adults where one cares for the kids and does (if any) only part time, that means an average annual net income of $61,600.

The fact the average annual income of workers is far less than that simply means, there are super rich people taking the biggest piece of the cake, leaving the vast majority of people with very little, which not only shows inequality, but shows an unfair spread.

Anthing from 70% to 150% of the average is considered middle class, or in other words, up to a net income of $92,400 per year, a family cannot be considered rich, let alone super rich, therefore wouldn't be effected by "taxing the rich", let alone the top 0.1%.

 

You talk about a decent living and large quantities of capital.

May I ask, how much would you consider a large quantity of capital?

Unless you own at least a billion, sorry, you're not rich enough to compete with the big boys.

Even if you earn over 500k net per year, you're still extremely likely not effected by taxing the rich, just the opposite, giving tax breaks to the rich and putting the burden on the middle class cuts big time into your personal income.

 

Again, terminating government and leaving it up to everyone to care for himself is a different story, we're just discussing here different forms of government, excluding the option of no government.

Still, just out of curiosity I'd love to see your estimate of how much you would earn if there were no government and how much things like your health care would cost you, given the fact that without a single payer system you're already paying twice as much as single payer systems costs.

 

Simple pointing out that one isn't on the Maldive islands or isn't a billionaire isn't an argument though.

 

Your premise still lies on two false narratives 

1.)Bernie Sander's initiatives only would effect the super wealthy-this isnt the case, see my case above at #13

2)Bernie Sander's Initiatives would help all those who are not super wealthy-see my case above at #13.

 

If you want to keep the topic to only include the super wealthy, we can. But even at that, all his policies would do is encourage these people to keep their citizenship and capital, elsewhere (such as Cayman or Monaco), which then shifts more of a burden on the top 10-2%

 

(it surely won't shift to the bottom 55% which elected him, even if he wanted to, there are not enough of them working in the free market to even remotely cover the policies he wants mandated)

 

Similar to how someone posting here would indicate they are probably not a carefree billionaire, you being naive enough to think a socialist government would have a positive impact on a person earning 100-500k a year is just as telling.

[cab21]

Calculating how much you're worth is actually fairly easy, but for some reason nobody actually does that calculation.

Take your country's GDP, divide by the amount of existing jobs including entrepreneurs and divide that by the average 4 times money changes hands before taxes and fees have returned it to the state and you'll get the average net income per earner.

The USA had a GDP of $16.77 Billion in 2013, while there were about 130 million jobs and about 6 million entrepreneurs and self employed.

 

$16.77 trillion / 136 million / 4 = $30,800 average net annual income per earner.

For a family with two adults where one cares for the kids and does (if any) only part time, that means an average annual net income of $61,600.

The fact the average annual income of workers is far less than that simply means, there are super rich people taking the biggest piece of the cake, leaving the vast majority of people with very little, which not only shows inequality, but shows an unfair spread.

Anthing from 70% to 150% of the average is considered middle class, or in other words, up to a net income of $92,400 per year, a family cannot be considered rich, let alone super rich, therefore wouldn't be effected by "taxing the rich", let alone the top 0.1%.

 

 

it's a false way to look at work to only look at wages or salary

 

return on capital investments has to be calculated as well

 

if a person has 1 billion in capital investments, and gets a return of 1.05 billion, the person has still produced 50 million in return ( not even counting how much the 1 billion actually had to produce for the 50 million return on capital, whether or not the person actually gets a salary or wage from the investments. even if the person lost money, the persons capital enabled a company to create jobs or buy equipments or otherwise do business in the first place.

 

the person who invests a million and gets a 5% return on investment, or 50k, has contributed at least as much person with a 50k salary because the investment made it even possible for the 50k salary to have the job in the first place.

 

the super rich only take the biggest piece of the cake because they contribute the biggest piece of the cake, and take on the biggest risk. someone making a 50k salary does not risk losing 50k but someone contributing 5000k in capital does risk losing 5000k in capital.

 

wealth is created, so there is no cake, people can work together to create more wealth, rather than try and fight each other over some made up pie

[Thomasio]

it's a false way to look at work to only look at wages or salary

 

return on capital investments has to be calculated as well

 

And there you're once again mistaking hard working business for super rich, only leaving out the "small" before business from my post above.

There is nothing wrong with someone investing, building something, creating jobs, etc., making a return on his investment and that doesn't at all disturb the AVERAGE income of all the people.

If one individual invests 50 million, employs 1000 people and takes 5 million for a personal profit of 10% per year, that only means, his 1000 workers will earn on average 5K less per year and the overall average is still intact.

 

You just don't understand what the super rich are doing with the tax breaks they are getting.

We're in the 2nd or 3rd generation of inherited wealth by people who have never moved a finger in their life.

They don't work, they hire some managers, pay them a few millions so they organize their profits.

They simply own the money they give to whoever wants a loan, which today for the most part are state loans to finance national debt, they cash interest and live off that.

There is no work involved for them, they enjoy life from birth to death without EVER contributing the slightest little bit to our society, plain parasites.

[cab21]

There is nothing wrong with someone investing, building something, creating jobs, etc., making a return on his investment and that doesn't at all disturb the AVERAGE income of all the people.

If one individual invests 50 million, employs 1000 people and takes 5 million for a personal profit of 10% per year, that only means, his 1000 workers will earn on average 5K less per year and the overall average is still intact.

 

if someone decides to not take the 5 million in personal profits (compensation), that does not mean that the person will give 5 million more in salary or wages. the 5 million would stay in the business for anything the business needs. the overall average could go down because the company choose to invest in equipment or real estate or keep cash on hand pay off debt or other things that will help the business out in the future. there is no set amount of money that a company pays people to the point of a zero sum game where if one person gets less another person gets more. the 5 million in compensation does not change the amount of capital the person has invested in the business, and the person can just take the 5 million in compensation and put it back into the company as a capital investment

 

You just don't understand what the super rich are doing with the tax breaks they are getting.

We're in the 2nd or 3rd generation of inherited wealth by people who have never moved a finger in their life.

They don't work, they hire some managers, pay them a few millions so they organize their profits.

They simply own the money they give to whoever wants a loan, which today for the most part are state loans to finance national debt, they cash interest and live off that.

There is no work involved for them, they enjoy life from birth to death without EVER contributing the slightest little bit to our society, plain parasites.

 

 if they contribute money, they contribute. spending money also contributes.

so without their money, the managers would not be hired, the loans would not be given, the debts would not be paid,

 

people that have a job because of the spending of these people would not have a job. like if they did not buy a house, many people that worked on building that house would not have a job. if they did not buy food, people that worked to provide that food would not have a job.

 

all the money that these people spends or invests contributes to the economy.

[Thomasio]

if they contribute money, they contribute. spending money also contributes.

so without their money, the managers would not be hired, the loans would not be given, the debts would not be paid,

... and there is the problem.

If they own the money exclusively because they inherited it, while NEVER moving a finger themselves, that's feudalism.

As far as I understood feudalism was terminated when capitalism came up, because feudalism was found to be just too unfair.

[shirgall]

... and there is the problem.

If they own the money exclusively because they inherited it, while NEVER moving a finger themselves, that's feudalism.

As far as I understood feudalism was terminated when capitalism came up, because feudalism was found to be just too unfair.

 

That's not feudalism. Feudalism is a relationship between a small group of military-minded real-property-owning absolute rulers who promise to protect those servants that serve them and work their land.

 

What you have described is parents that pass the control of resources they have gathered to their children in order to perpetuate their particular flavor of the species.

[Alan C.]

Increasing taxes on the rich doesn't reduce my tax burden.

 

I'm not interested in having a debate over who should be taxed and at what rate because it's irrelevant.

 

It's obvious that you're very frustrated, but your ire is directed at the wrong people. The "super rich" aren't the reason why you're in the situation that you're in.

 

As far as a person's "worth" goes, people don't get to tell others what they think they're worth; other people decide what they're worth. That's how it works.

 

GDP is a meaningless statistic for several reasons. GDP can increase while people become more impoverished and decrease while people become more prosperous. GDP doesn't make any relative comparisons of living standards and doesn't differentiate productive from unproductive. Just because people are spending and consuming doesn't mean that they're better off, and just  because they're working doesn't mean that they're productive.

 

The economy isn't static, and so your comparison to a cake doesn't apply.

 

I don't have the exact figure, but the company that I work for cost tens of millions of dollars to build (including the actual office building and everything inside). It was financed by a small group of investors, the wealthiest of whom had accumulated capital from previous business ventures.

 

Computers and electronics rapidly improve every year while prices decline. Even the poor can afford computers and mobile phones. Conversely, health-care is prohibitively expensive, and becomes more costly every year, because of regulatory mandates. Without the State, I'd expect the price, availability, and variety of health-care to mimic that of computers and electronics.

... and there is the problem.
If they own the money exclusively because they inherited it, while NEVER moving a finger themselves, that's feudalism.

 

So, if a family member or relative gets it then that's bad, but if a stranger gets it then that's good?

 

Who should get it?

[Thomasio]

It's obvious that you're very frustrated, but your ire is directed at the wrong people. The "super rich" aren't the reason why you're in the situation that you're in.

 

As far as a person's "worth" goes, people don't get to tell others what they think they're worth; other people decide what they're worth. That's how it works.

How do you know the situation I'm in?

Wanna know? I bet you'll be surprised.

 

I grew up in Germany, got some average education and went on start for a regular job.

Since I'm a computer freak, I didn't even bother learning some profession, but went for self learned stuff right away.

I had jobs as service technician visiting customers at home as well as a regular job in a computer shop, which was back then a good job, simply because computer technology was in its early days.

After some 10 years I discovered, the system isn't working, I could already tell, even though my job was halfway well paid, the pension I would get later on, no matter how many years I would work, upon an expected average inflation rate my expected pension would leave me in poverty as soon as I stop working.

I left the system, became self employed and haven't paid a dime of tax since.

All completely legal, no work in black or anything, I just found my way around, i.e. through playing Backgammon online for money, where winnings are tax free and apparently I'm pretty good at it.

Aside of that I learned programming and I've created a few websites for people and small companies, but the money I made through that always remained below the tax free level.

Over all I've had a real good "income" that way, well over 100k per year, I paid my private health care which in Germany costs less than half the public health care but is accessable only for the wealthy and the self employed, and I invested in a pretty unusual way of pension plan.

I bought gold, not some paper junk, but real physical gold, which multiplied its value by over 7 times betwen 1999 and 2011.

This money I invested then in a private pension funds which has a pretty good return (so far).

In between I moved to Italy and married a state employed teacher who is by now retired and gets a fairly good pension.

When playing for money online became too difficult, because now it has become illegal in most contries and the services have increased their commissions to the roof, I've quit, I was just lucky enough to get enough money together in time.

I've retired (if you want to call it that) at the age of 45, not because I'm getting a pension (yet), but because I just don't have to work anymore, my wife and me own all we want, we don't have any debt, we have a house, a car, I can afford 3 times 3 weeks of vacation per year, I have a secure retirement and I'm more than content with how I managed a secure life without much efford.

Just to show a bit of activity and contribution to popular movements I've recently added a solar system to our house, meaning now I'm even mostly independent from energy prices, at least during daylight.

 

For fun I'm still creating websites and I take care of the computers of a whole bunch of friends (who mostly are my friends only because they like getting me to work for free, but I'm aware of that and I'm fine with it).

I do that for free for my "friends" and even from strangers I take so very little money that no commercial service can compete.

I'm having computer companies swearing at me, because my cheap service is killing their business and I'm having a load of plain fun out of that, to my mind they are just lucky I'm a one man show and I just can't (nor want to) do all the work available.

I'm buying computer parts for everyone I know in China, for a fraction of the price those things cost in Italy and I forward them at no profit, killing local stores that way and I consider that my personal revenge to a system that moves more and more local jobs to Asia.

 

You might wonder, why I'm so much against a system, where I was so easily able to make my way through it, and why I vote for even more regulations, but that's easy to answer.

If all other people had tried to do the same I did this wouldn't work for anyone, simply because in a game of Backgammon, there is no over all profit, for every cent I win, someone else will lose not only as much as I win, but plus the commission for the service, while society as a whole has no advantage whatsoever.

Since I was able to do this from within a highly regulated society, I believe in an entirely unregulated society way more people would do something similar and society as a whole would go down the drain.

Even though my free working for friends and very cheap services for others are highly apreciated by those who benefit from it, for society as a whole, I'm a destructive force.

Having children would have been possible for me, but costs too much for my lifestyle, I would have had to cut back on other things I enjoy in my life, meaning if all other people would do like I did, humans would die out within one generation.

[Thomasio]

So, if a family member or relative gets it then that's bad, but if a stranger gets it then that's good?

 

Who should get it?

 

Nobody should get it, at least not for free, simply because nobody has earned it.

Not any relatives of the former owner, nor any individual someone who hasn't earned it.

Being the offspring of the former owner cannot be a reason to get free wealth, because birthright shouldn't have any value.

Up to a given value, say 500k inheriting may remain free, so children of wealthy people will not fall into poverty even if they are worthless parasites, but above that any accumulation of wealth should fall back to the society it has been generated in.

There should be an auction, selling it to the highest bidder, where ALL people should benefit from the sale in form of public services, such as schools, museums, streets and all kind of other stuff financed from the money.

[shirgall]

Nobody should get it, at least not for free, simply because nobody has earned it.

 

Therefore, let's pile it all up under the body and send it off to the afterlife in a giant bonfire, Viking-style. Let's not give the dearly-departed any choice in how his or her hard-earned resources are used.

 

Yeah, that's gonna motivate people.

[mlsv2f]

Nobody should get it, at least not for free, simply because nobody has earned it.

Not any relatives of the former owner, nor any individual someone who hasn't earned it.

Being the offspring of the former owner cannot be a reason to get free wealth, because birthright shouldn't have any value.

Up to a given value, say 500k inheriting may remain free, so children of wealthy people will not fall into poverty even if they are worthless parasites, but above that any accumulation of wealth should fall back to the society it has been generated in.

There should be an auction, selling it to the highest bidder, where ALL people should benefit from the sale in form of public services, such as schools, museums, streets and all kind of other stuff financed from the money.

 

What if people leave the country with their wealth? Do you prevent them from leaving?

 

 

As mentioned above, your narrative still relies on two false pretenses

 

1)Only the super wealthy would be effected, this isn't the case, refer to #13

2)The upper middle, middle, and lower classes would all be beneficiaries, refer to post #13

 

These practices have been tried before you have they not?

[Alan C.]

There should be an auction, selling it to the highest bidder, where ALL people should benefit from the sale in form of public services, such as schools, museums, streets and all kind of other stuff financed from the money.

 

There you have the reason why socialism never lifts the masses out of poverty.

[shirgall]

There you have the reason why socialism never lifts the masses out of poverty.

 

Especially since what is primarily left when one dies of old age is investments funding retirement expenses, a home, and personal effects whose sentimental value to the children is probably greater than their monetary value to the esurient state.

[cab21]

... and there is the problem.

If they own the money exclusively because they inherited it, while NEVER moving a finger themselves, that's feudalism.

As far as I understood feudalism was terminated when capitalism came up, because feudalism was found to be just too unfair.

inheritance is not feudalism

 

in capitalism, people get to decide how to use the fruits of their labor, so if they decide to give a inheritance, that was the choice of people that earned the wealth. the prospect of being able to give out a inheritance was likely one of the reasons the people worked to create the wealth in the first place. the way to find out if someone does well with the wealth they inherit is whether the person loses the wealth, or increases the wealth. if they lose the wealth, then the wealth goes to others who will try and increase the wealth.

[Jinr0h]

... and there is the problem.

If they own the money exclusively because they inherited it, while NEVER moving a finger themselves, that's feudalism.

As far as I understood feudalism was terminated when capitalism came up, because feudalism was found to be just too unfair.

This point of view is disturbing. I cannot understand how people justify robbery (which is what taking an inheritance is) just because the resources they are stealing belong to another tribe and call it social justice.

[Thomasio]

This point of view is disturbing. I cannot understand how people justify robbery (which is what taking an inheritance is) just because the resources they are stealing belong to another tribe and call it social justice.

 

Ok, let's see.

If any accumulation of wealth is always forwarded within the same family, how could anyone from outside those families ever hope to compete with their power?

Only on the possibility that the offspring is too dumb to hire some managers who manage their wealth good enough?

How could anyone from outside these families ever feel free, while those families dictate all the rules of all the markets simply because they have the monetary power to ruin any small competition?

 

How did Microsoft ruin Netscape?

Microsoft simply gave away their Internet Explorer for free and the small competition was gone in no time, because you just can't underbid a free offer if you depend on making at least a living from your product.

 

Whether you call it unfair or whatever, there simply is no chance to ever create a truly free society, if you allow the exponentially increasing wealth of a tiny minority.

You might get a whole lot of open source free projects going, like Linux, but anything remotely profitable will remain in the hands of the rich who accumulate ever more wealth over the generations.

If they buy and occupy all the land and refuse to sell any, how could anyone build anything?

[Jinr0h]

Ok, let's see.

If any accumulation of wealth is always forwarded within the same family, how could anyone from outside those families ever hope to compete with their power?

Only on the possibility that the offspring is too dumb to hire some managers who manage their wealth good enough?

How could anyone from outside these families ever feel free, while those families dictate all the rules of all the markets simply because they have the monetary power to ruin any small competition?

 

How did Microsoft ruin Netscape?

Microsoft simply gave away their Internet Explorer for free and the small competition was gone in no time, because you just can't underbid a free offer if you depend on making at least a living from your product.

 

Whether you call it unfair or whatever, there simply is no chance to ever create a truly free society, if you allow the exponentially increasing wealth of a tiny minority.

You might get a whole lot of open source free projects going, like Linux, but anything remotely profitable will remain in the hands of the rich who accumulate ever more wealth over the generations.

If they buy and occupy all the land and refuse to sell any, how could anyone build anything?

 

Ok, let's see.

If any accumulation of wealth is always forwarded within the same family, how could anyone from outside those families ever hope to compete with their power?

Only on the possibility that the offspring is too dumb to hire some managers who manage their wealth good enough?

How could anyone from outside these families ever feel free, while those families dictate all the rules of all the markets simply because they have the monetary power to ruin any small competition?

 

How did Microsoft ruin Netscape?

Microsoft simply gave away their Internet Explorer for free and the small competition was gone in no time, because you just can't underbid a free offer if you depend on making at least a living from your product.

 

Whether you call it unfair or whatever, there simply is no chance to ever create a truly free society, if you allow the exponentially increasing wealth of a tiny minority.

You might get a whole lot of open source free projects going, like Linux, but anything remotely profitable will remain in the hands of the rich who accumulate ever more wealth over the generations.

If they buy and occupy all the land and refuse to sell any, how could anyone build anything?

You are assuming rich people do not spend money. If I have inherited money, then I would imagine that I would be involved, to some degree, with purchasing things unless we are also assuming rich people do not spend money and are entirely self-sufficient. In this way, the rich would lose money analogous to Hawking radiation and, therefore, disappear (unless they are protected and funded by an immoral government).

Do you think that innovative solutions can compete with corporations? If so then how do you reconcile that fact, with your desire to steal from other people? If not then how do you account for individuals like Elon Musk? 

Saying that "If they buy and occupy all the land and refuse to sell any, how could anyone build anything?" is unrealistic, how do you propose the 1% occupy the entire globe?

The reason Microsoft gave away the terrible IE is because they realised that most people just want stuff for free and would accept a bad product if it were free (socialist policy), people who would steal inheritance for example. They took advantage of the same mindset within society that the argument that you put forward exhibits.

It occurs to me that there is a culture of individuals who are highly charged due to their inability to reconcile reality (existentialism) with the effort required to become successful within the lifetime limitation we all share. 

This should be a motivation but due to the narrative pushed forward by those who have taken over the social justice movement it instills a sense of hopelessness instead. 

So how do people who feel hopeless, feel better about reality? I would say they would find an ideology that justifies their mentality rather than challenge it, socialism. 

It is unfortunate however that socialism has been shown to prey on the people they claim they are defending. However, as long as the populace who are supportive of socialism aren't forced to face the issues that propagate the movement, they will accept their lot and push for more and more extreme versions of socialism. 

And here you are pushing for what I would consider extreme socialism.

This is inevitable because the reality is socialism does not work and facing that truth can be a painful process.

[Alan C.]

If any accumulation of wealth is always forwarded within the same family, how could anyone from outside those families ever hope to compete with their power?

 

By offering something better, or catering to a niche market.

 

How did Microsoft ruin Netscape? Microsoft simply gave away their Internet Explorer for free and the small competition was gone in no time, because you just can't underbid a free offer if you depend on making at least a living from your product.

 

This notion that giving away a free product that improves people's lives is a bad thing is ridiculous. I thought that socialism was about getting free stuff like free education, free health-care, and free retirement.

 

Firefox and Chrome are free, and they're both superior to IE.

 

Google offers free products like Google Talk and GMail. Skype is free. Steam is free, has built-in voip, cloud storage for screenshots, game guides, and mods, and offers a bunch of free-to-play games. LibreOffice is free.

[neeeel]

How would I compete with walmart? I dont have the capital to compete. Whatever I offer, they can offer at a reduced price. If I find a niche market and its making money for me, they are going to see that, and can take that market away from me. 

 

This notion that giving away a free product that improves people's lives is a bad thing is ridiculous.

 

 

The point wasnt whether it was good or bad. It was that microsoft destroyed its competition, by offering its product for free. And it was only able to do that, because it was a bigger, richer corporation than netscape. 

Firefox and Chrome are free and are better , yes. How many people would pay for them, if theres an ok free alternative?