The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Benjamin Cole]

Here's the deal: No matter what a nation tries to do for social equity, if it has loose labor markets, everything else becomes 10 times harder. 

[Ron Bulman]

This is too close to home.  Within an all too close few miles from where my daughter teaches.

Richardson high school student arrested after citizen reports seeing gun (msn.com)

[Paul Brancato]

Ron - my grandchildren live a few hours from this small town. It hits close to home for their mother and for me.

[Douglas Caddy]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/twitter-investors-deal-a-big-and-humiliating-blow-to-musk/ar-AAXIH2y?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=c08c6614c5744da0adea7080bf370172

[Douglas Caddy]

 

I live in Houston where tomorrow there will be mass protests against the NRA holding its national meeting in the city's premier convention center this weekend. Trump, Abbott, and Cruz are among the speakers who will pay homage to NRA for its financial and political support given to them over the years.

[Greg Doudna]

Some progress Chris!

13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

(which I like the idea of, even if we disagree on financing), what needs to be done is to ensure that there is a full financial education given to the recipients before they receive the money. 

13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

 I am pro a lump sum, education and support must accompany it, if it is to succeed. We all want something better, in truth it isn't much to ask, Greg. I think some of this illustrates that it's a difficult task and a lot needs to be done. We should try. 

You bring up a point: financial education could help more people use Inheritance for All wisely and not burn through the money frivolously. I suppose it would be possible to have a requirement for a certain x number of hours of financial education as part of the package, though that becomes another federal program and bureaucracy with its own administrative and budget issues. Widespread and broad strong encouragement of every person to get basic financial education freely and widely accessible should be possible even without formal government mandate. I believe Piketty talked about age 25, not age 21, as his age for Inheritance for All received by every citizen, in part for the consideration you name: the idea that people at age 25 are a bit more mature, probably more likely to be on their own and to make better decisions, perhaps now thinking of children's futures not just themselves, than at age 21, speaking in aggregate numbers.

In the end, Inheritance for All is about equalization of opportunity. It cannot guarantee outcomes. If Inheritance for All were implemented, some news stories might talk about those who blew it. Other news stories might talk about the permanent transformations of family assets and wealth of the millions who did not blow it, and how structurally that strengthened America and the lives of tens of millions of children and grandchildren of those families going forward. And those who blew it, perhaps with regrets later in life, some might do everything they could to make sure their children do not repeat their mistakes, as happens on many other levels in life already now.

However there remains the issue of how to pay for it. You support Inheritance for All, but have a position that no inheritance tax or any other tax on the wealthy will work as a means to pay for it:

13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I have outlined how I don't think your method (or Piketty's) will work in terms of raising the capital, unless many things change or are remedied. That's not me being a black cloud of negativity, it's be being a realist. 

May I ask, if you are opposed to Piketty's idea of not-totally-confiscatory inheritance taxation on the wealthiest families as the means of funding a pass-through Inheritance for All, how do you propose to find the money for Inheritance for All? Where does the money come from as you envision it? 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

However there remains the issue of how to pay for it. You support Inheritance for All, but have a position that no inheritance tax or any other tax on the wealthy will work as a means to pay for it:

Hi Greg,

Quite simply, if we are going talk about where the money comes from, then you’re going to need to decide on a monetary figure that is required, so that we know how much we need to get. At which point, we can then look at it he balance sheet and figure out where it is going to come from. My first port of fall would be to look at the misspend and corruption aspects. 
 

We also need to consider the role of coming robotics, AI and automation, and how that impacts the US labour market. 

 

We also have the national debt and inflation to consider. It’s no good if the USD ceases to be the worlds base currency at the end of the decade, we see massive collapse and everyone is wiped out, bar the elites who have been smart enough to have assets in other things than currency. 
 

Then I have another question: are we still ok with people working in Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines etc making our goods, doing long hours to take home just enough money to feed themselves? Or, in your view are your concerns only extending to the US borders? 

 

Perhaps the taxes can come from another source. I am not fan of Marx, but he defined the end days of capitalism as oligarchs cannibalising state institutions. I suspect we’ll disagree on this but, I see masses of corruption and tax payer monies being passes directly into the hands of large corporations/oligarchs. I think Chris Hedges notably points a lot of this out, a guy who has a strong desire for equality. 
 

Maybe it can come from another source of taxation. But, we need to sort out the systematic issues, or its doomed to failure IMHO. 
 

Have you ever watched this?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/bill-sardi/who-runs-the-world-blackrock-and-vanguard/

I’d be interested in your thoughts. 

Chris

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Quite simply, if we are going talk about where the money comes from, then you’re going to need to decide on a monetary figure that is required, so that we know how much we need to get. At which point, we can then look at it he balance sheet and figure out where it is going to come from. 

I don't know if I explained it clearly. I will try again. Piketty's Inheritance for All proposal has no defined amount that it costs. It is not a defined-benefit proposal and there is never an unfunded liability. The amount of the lump-sum paid out each year from the dedicated trust fund to every American on their 25th birthday in Piketty's Inheritance for All is recalibrated each year based on how much is in the fund. In the proposal nothing comes out of general revenue or budget of the government. It is a dedicated trust fund, funded by a dedicated pass-through inheritance tax (30% starting rate on estates of $10 million and up, rising progressively capping out at top-end 65% at billionaire level, i.e. children born to a parent with $10 billion would be down to getting only $3.5 billion entitlement, which a couple decades of simple passive investment alone should fully recover and surpass).

So you are throwing all these reasons why something that you say you support can't be done, including reasons that are non-existent in the proposal.

How is your support for Inheritance for All (according to previous post) different from conservatives who give lip service to saying they support the idea of everyone having medical care and no children growing up in poverty but oppose any specific bill introduced into Congress that involves tax rates on the wealthy to pay for it?

One sort of gets the impression that maybe they are not serious about wanting the objective they claim, if they only cite flurries of objections with no concrete proposals toward paying for what they say they want to see too.

If that doesn't describe you, could you clarify how you see yourself differing from that familiar line of conservative rhetoric, which believe me, a whole lot of people in America over here see through when conservatives in Congress talk like that?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Maybe it can come from another source of taxation. But, we need to sort out the systematic issues, or its doomed to failure IMHO. 

You've stated the wealthy are off-limits ("won't work"). What "other sources of taxation" do you have in mind as sustainable going forward, that exempt the wealthy? I'm just wondering if you could be a bit more specific.  

[Guest]

@Greg Doudna You're back on track with the suggestive linguistics again, making it a little pointed. You know this is quite a complicated issue, right? 

FYI I haven't read your linked paper, mostly due to time constraints. Partly due to appetite. As I have outlined, I don't think the wealthy will go for it, not for one minute. I am eating with some of those guys tomorrow, they'd roll their eyes or laugh at the idea. 

I have outlined challenges faced, things that need resolving before you could even look at such an idea. You don't really have any thoughts on this, bar that financial education is needed. You're ignoring a lot of things, with the biggest being your systematically corrupt government. 

9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

How is your support for Inheritance for All (according to previous post) different from conservatives who give lip service to saying they support the idea of everyone having medical care and no children growing up in poverty but oppose any specific bill introduced into Congress that involves tax rates on the wealthy to pay for it?

I don't get paid to rip voters off and deceive them, or serve the class you are against. There is a clear distinction. It is one thing having a will to solve these things and it is another to have a functional idea or plan to make that happen. We both have a will for it to happen, and are driven by compassion. I actually think all of the issues I have outlined in previous posts needs resolving first. In this conversation, I am being a realist. Your proposal is fantasy, simply because you ignore human nature and how the people you want to tax operate. Which for me, kills your idea stone dead, sorry. It's fine to disagree, it stops our conversation in its tracks, Greg. 
 

16 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You've stated the wealthy are off-limits ("won't work"). What "other sources of taxation" do you have in mind as sustainable going forward, that exempt the wealthy? I'm just wondering if you could be a bit more specific.  

I didn't state that, they are your words. We can both play games with words. You just don't have a chance with 65% inheritance tax on the very wealthy. You're asking me to be specific in a hypothetical conversation? I'd need to study the books, and identify how much misspending is going on, and eradicate that, before looking at a viable option here, The Pentagon lost $3trn in one years budget. Nobody was held `accountable. When you are running things like that, its a dooky-show, this needs addressing first, you're leaking money everywhere, as there is institutional corruption. 

PS I notice you didn't address the exploitation/slavery/equality abroad question, so I presume like many conservatives, you just care about American citizens and what goes on within your borders. 🙂 

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

I live in Houston where tomorrow there will be mass protests against the NRA holding its national meeting in the city's premier convention center this weekend. Trump, Abbott, and Cruz are among the speakers who will pay homage to NRA for its financial and political support given to them over the years.

 

[Steve Thomas]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1529817124256026624

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar

Herschel Walker's solution to school shootings involves "a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at social media."

 

It’s all them women looking at those social media thingys. That’s the problem.

Oh yeah, and all them young mens ogling them.

We need a department! We need a department!

Herschel Walker for President!

Steve Thomas

[W. Niederhut]

I saw a horrifying stat today.

There have been 288 school shootings in the U.S.

No other country in the world is even close.

I think #2 on the list is Mexico, with 8 school shootings.

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

I live in Houston where tomorrow there will be mass protests against the NRA holding its national meeting in the city's premier convention center this weekend. Trump, Abbott, and Cruz are among the speakers who will pay homage to NRA for its financial and political support given to them over the years.

It's a good thing these three performers are backing out but there should be a massive protest at this event.  JMO

Don McLean, Larry Gatlin, Larry Stewart withdraw their NRA performances after Texas shooting (msn.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

 

How much did the NRA donate to Abbott, Cruz and Cornyn before Uvalde? (houstonchronicle.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

This is so sad.

 

Husband of teacher killed at Texas elementary school shooting dies - ABC News (go.com)