Tax Plan For Aristocracy

[LVH2]

Stop punishing wealth accumulation at the top of society, and start promoting it at the bottom and middle of society. That is far more effective than Robin Hood Economics.

Does "Robin Hood economics" mean, progressive taxation funding strong infrastructure and a welfare state to attend to basic needs and upward mobility, like the G.I. bill? That seems to have worked well here, there, europe, Oz, Japan.

Now that we've moved away from it, we see the middle class in the U.S. shrinking rapidly, and open and unchecked political corruption. G.I. bill ---> college costs six figures to fund a bloated administration in bed with private lenders.

When you mention nobless oblige, is that your alternative to the model above?

I think one reason things are getting worse is that we have very little nobless oblige. For example, as I mentioned, elites only profit from wars and never fight in them. They spend billions lobbying to get those wars. Politicians and their children get millions in speaking fees and do-nothing jobs. etc.

Would they move in the opposite direction if we lowered taxes on them even more than we have?

[StCapps]

There's an $11 million exemption. To say that a federal estate tax is in any way going to affect middle class people is not within the realm of reality. Lower economic class people, by definition, have little or no assets to leave to anyone.

We aren't taking about the federal estate tax, we are talking about Hash's inheritance tax proposal, try to keep up.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

On a side note, I was using this thread to refine a section in my book. I used to say "democracy is liberty's greatest threat," but after this exchange, I've changed that to "aristocracy is liberty's greatest threat" because people will use democracy to turn to socialism. Very valuable insight gained here.

How about: Liberty walks a tightrope between the tantamount threats of aristocracy and democracy.

Nice, but it's "aristocracy and collectivism."

The question is how to keep liberty in spite of a particular 'ocracy,' with collectivism, presumably, being the worst case scenario of too much of the 'dem' variety.


But, it is your book.

[Martin Hash]

How about: Liberty walks a tightrope between the tantamount threats of aristocracy and democracy.

Nice, but it's "aristocracy and collectivism."

The question is how to keep liberty in spite of a particular 'ocracy,' with collectivism, presumably, being the worst case scenario of too much of the 'dem' variety.


But, it is your book.

Having both key words of the aphorism end in "ocracy" was more poetic, but artistic license will only get you so far.

[jediuser598]

On a side note, I was using this thread to refine a section in my book. I used to say "democracy is liberty's greatest threat," but after this exchange, I've changed that to "aristocracy is liberty's greatest threat" because people will use democracy to turn to socialism. Very valuable insight gained here.

Democracy is the greatest threat to liberty, you had it right the first time.

I've gone with that for a couple years but what causes people to want socialism? People vote in their own best interests: if the liberty paradigm is failing them because The Rich have hogged all the opportunity, they indeed would see an increase in freedom and well-being with socialism. The Rich don't care, they'll have liberty no matter what. (Another thing I learned in this forum, money beats the shit out of accomplishment.)

The ecosystem needs to be maintained. I imagine we agree that The Rich control most laws anyways, and the only way that rule is going to be overturned is if the lower classes start hurting too much. If The Rich take too much, well, being that we're all still human, then the rich start dying, because the lower classes aren't going to die in the streets so that they can own their 5th Ferrari.

It's a balancing act. Make conditions too hard on the working class, they revolt. There is this current trend that the working classes will vote against their own best interests, as long as they're not in peril, as long as they've got enough bread, but it's hard to market "you should starve to death, because reasons." Or "You should let your children and family to starve to death, because reasons." That's a hard sell.

[MilSpecs]

There's an $11 million exemption. To say that a federal estate tax is in any way going to affect middle class people is not within the realm of reality. Lower economic class people, by definition, have little or no assets to leave to anyone.

We aren't taking about the federal estate tax, we are talking about Hash's inheritance tax proposal, try to keep up.

The federal estate tax is current reality and you're railing against the concept. And there is no longer a sense of noblesse oblige. That would entail a sense of honor. Do you look at the very top and see honorable people?

[LVH2]

On a side note, I was using this thread to refine a section in my book. I used to say "democracy is liberty's greatest threat," but after this exchange, I've changed that to "aristocracy is liberty's greatest threat" because people will use democracy to turn to socialism. Very valuable insight gained here.

Democracy is the greatest threat to liberty, you had it right the first time.

I've gone with that for a couple years but what causes people to want socialism? People vote in their own best interests: if the liberty paradigm is failing them because The Rich have hogged all the opportunity, they indeed would see an increase in freedom and well-being with socialism. The Rich don't care, they'll have liberty no matter what. (Another thing I learned in this forum, money beats the shit out of accomplishment.)

This is true. I wonder if the don't tax me bro rich don't understand this, or they do and are just willing to slug it out? It doesn't make a ton of sense, really. It would also seem that a equali-sh society is just a more pleasant place to live. More good restaurants, for example. Less crime.

That's why I conclude that a lot of the Lizard People really just get off on the disparity being as wide as possible. Me in a limo and you in a Nissan < Me in a limo and you on the bus. Also, a wider disparity means not just a wider disparity of material goods, but the ability to totally dominate the political process. Exemption from the rule of law. Stuff like that.

Also possible, a lack of pragmatism due to getting so swept up with fighting for your side. Which happens with socialism too, when people get to the point that they would prefer to have worse, but more equal lives.

[StCapps]

Does "Robin Hood economics" mean, progressive taxation funding strong infrastructure and a welfare state to attend to basic needs and upward mobility, like the G.I. bill? That seems to have worked well here, there, europe, Oz, Japan.

Robin Hood Economics = Taking From The Rich, Giving To The Poor.
I'm cool with Progressive taxation, but it's certainly not the best way to uplift the poor and middle classes, nor do I pretend that it is.

Now that we've moved away from it, we see the middle class in the U.S. shrinking rapidly, and open and unchecked political corruption. G.I. bill ---> college costs six figures to fund a bloated administration in bed with private lenders.

The US hasn't been moving away from Robin Hood Economics, that been on the upswing in America for a while now.

When you mention nobless oblige, is that your alternative to the model above?

I mean "nobility obliges". Nobility extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person who holds such a status to fulfill social responsibilities.

I think one reason things are getting worse is that we have very little nobless oblige. For example, as I mentioned, elites only profit from wars and never fight in them. They spend billions lobbying to get those wars. Politicians and their children get millions in speaking fees and do-nothing jobs. etc.

Exactly the problem isn't that an aristocracy exists, it's that the aristocracy isn't as merit-based as it should be, which is what Noblesse Oblige refers to. You can't prevent the aristocracy from existing, so you might as well make it the best aristocracy that it can be, instead of pretending tax policy can eliminate it from existence, that's counter productive.

Would they move in the opposite direction if we lowered taxes on them even more than we have?

Why would taxing them more make them more likely to agree with you? Most folks in America don't take kindly to higher taxes, punishing them makes them more likely to oppose you, not be with you. The more the government takes from the rich, the less they feel like they have to give back to poor, because "that's the governments job" and they already took my money to pay for that.

You want to incentive the rich to give to charity, that's a better way of helping the poor than tax and spend policies, not that I'm opposed to a safety net, it just isn't the optimal way to run an economy, it's only a safety net, it's not there to prevent falls and promote success of those most likely to fall, it's there to catch someone who falls, if they fall.

[jediuser598]

Democracy is the greatest threat to liberty, you had it right the first time.

I've gone with that for a couple years but what causes people to want socialism? People vote in their own best interests: if the liberty paradigm is failing them because The Rich have hogged all the opportunity, they indeed would see an increase in freedom and well-being with socialism. The Rich don't care, they'll have liberty no matter what. (Another thing I learned in this forum, money beats the shit out of accomplishment.)

This is true. I wonder if the don't tax me bro rich don't understand this, or they do and are just willing to slug it out? It doesn't make a ton of sense, really. It would also seem that a equali-sh society is just a more pleasant place to live. More good restaurants, for example. Less crime.

That's why I conclude that a lot of the Lizard People really just get off on the disparity being as wide as possible. Me in a limo and you in a Nissan < Me in a limo and you on the bus. Also, a wider disparity means not just a wider disparity of material goods, but the ability to totally dominate the political process. Exemption from the rule of law. Stuff like that.

Also possible, a lack of pragmatism due to getting so swept up with fighting for your side. Which happens with socialism too, when people get to the point that they would prefer to have worse, but more equal lives.

See that's the thing, as long as it is an equal playing field, then most people are fine with it. As long as they're subject to the same laws as us, it's all good, but increasingly that's not the case. My dad made a great point that I quote sometimes, "No one would be there to bail out my business if it fails, but if the Banks or Automakers fail, they get bailouts?"

It's not a fair playing field. "Socialize the losses, privatize the profits."

Learned a new term, "Lemon socialism."

[StCapps]

See that's the thing, as long as it is an equal playing field, then most people are fine with it. As long as they're subject to the same laws as us, it's all good, but increasingly that's not the case. My dad made a great point that I quote sometimes, "No one would be there to bail out my business if it fails, but if the Banks or Automakers fail, they get bailouts?"

It's not a fair playing field. Socialize the losses, privatize the profits.

The problem isn't income inequality, the problem is lack of equal opportunity. If the system were rigged in more merit based way, then less people around here would be so envious of the aristocracy, and they'd want folks to be free to join the aristocracy, if they earn it, rather than tear it down. Treating a symptom won't cure the illness, Robin Hood Economics is not the solution.