The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

 

9 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

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. 

No it doesn't. So long as the trust fund itself is clean, Inheritance For All does not require postponing indefinitely until Defense Department misspending is solved first. You set up these "should do this or that over here or over there first [which are unlikely to happen any time soon] and THEN we'll talk about <reform proposal under consideration>". 

9 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

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. (. . .)

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 (. . .)

You just don't have a chance with 65% inheritance tax on the very wealthy.

Existing top-end inheritance tax rates in these countries. They've had these rates for years and years. 

Japan, 55%

South Korea, 50%

France, 45%

United Kingdom, 40%

United States, 40% (down from the year 2001 when it was 55%)

Spain, 34%

etc.

Would your eye-rolling friends be OK with 40% or 50% instead of 65% top-end inheritance tax going dedicated pass-through to a trust fund for Inheritance for All? 

Are they rolling their eyes because, as men of the world, they know its simply not possible to have a 40-65% inheritance tax going pass-through to Inheritance at All, because after all, in the real world no nation has ever had inheritance taxes in that range that have worked, apart from the outlier nations out there on the fringe that do such as the US, UK, and Japan?

Or are are they laughing because they find it utterly side-splitting hilarious to imagine that they could ever imagine themselves personally supporting such an inheritance tax on their estates funding Inheritance for All?

I would be interested if you asked tomorrow and report back the reactions, if you care to do so. 

I do not think all super-wealthy at the top end over here in the US would automatically roll their eyes at the idea as you suppose. 

"Democrats [in Congress] now represent 65% of taxpayers [in their districts] with a household income of $500,000 or more, according to pre-pandemic Internal Revenue Service statistics" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-19/democrats-tax-hike-bet-relies-on-their-new-500-000-plus-voters). (That is not saying 65% of high-income earners are Democrats, but a significant percentage are.) Democrats are the party which traditionally supports higher taxes on the wealthy than Republicans. I would reasonably think a significant number of high-earners who are Democrats are in personal agreement with traditional Democratic Party utilization on both practical and ideological grounds of inheritance taxation in principle, or would, if proposed, of a Piketty-like Inheritance for All plan for all Americans funded by a dedicated inheritance tax.

Here is a clip of Bernie Sanders calling for a 77% top-end inheritance tax rate on billionaires (Piketty would consider that a little excessive and recommend rolling back to 65%): https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/its-time-for-a-100percent-tax-on-billionaire-estates-oscar-mayer-heir-says.html. Its only 83 seconds to watch. 

That clip is in an article by an heir to the Oscar Meyer fortune who is an author, with Bill Gates, Sr., of a book titled Wealth and our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes. 

Speaking of which, I have my own conspiracy theory on why there is industrial-strength demonization of Bill Gates coming from a thousand astroturf right-wing internet sources. Nothing like, as it was said of FDR, being a "traitor to one's class" to bring out the knives. Or as it was said of the Kennedys.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Ron Bulman]

Police in Uvalde school shooting scrutinized over response | The Texas Tribune

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Twitter shareholders sue Musk, say he 'deflated' stock price (msn.com)

[Benjamin Cole]

I understand in the US we do not provide safe streets to citizens. So telling people you cannot own a gun...well, easy for someone in Beverly Hills to say. 

That said, who needs an automatic weapon? 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I understand in the US we do not provide safe streets to citizens. So telling people you cannot own a gun...well, easy for someone in Beverly Hills to say. 

That said, who needs an automatic weapon? 

Most of the streets are as a general rule safe.  Granted, not so in maybe Harlem, Watt's, Oak Cliff anymore or southeast Fort Worth or many other inner cities, with gangs in particular.  The streets of Uvalde are generally safe I believe.  I've been there once, drove past John Nance Garner's house, it was closed for tours at the time.  You don't see Uvalde in the state news often that I remember.

Thankfully we don't sell fully automatic weapons to the public.

But, you can shoot a semi automatic as fast as you can pull the trigger.  A 30 round clip can be emptied in less than a minute.  The "kid" in Uvalde had 7 clips on him.  He bought himself Two Happy 18th Birthday presents.  Working part time at Wendy's.

They justify the public need for AR-15's and 30 round clips with self-defense.  From what?  The border?  Like tons of these immigrants are coming in armed.  The Government?   If they want you it's no real defense against a Chris Kyle or Blackhawk helicopter.  Say a home invasion?  Do you keep it handy all the time, out for the grandkids to play with when you go to the bathroom? If you need more than around 8-10 shots your likely already dead.  Using a hand gun or AR-15.  The movies are fiction.

Raise the age to 21.  Require background checks and safety training.  Limit magazine capacity.  For starters.

Off my soap box, for the moment.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Benjamin Cole]

37 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Most of the streets are as a general rule safe.  Granted, not so in maybe Harlem, Watt's, Oak Cliff anymore or southeast Fort Worth or many other inner cities, with gangs in particular.  The streets of Uvalde are generally safe I believe.  I've been there once, drove past John Nance Garner's house, it was closed for tours at the time.  You don't see Uvalde in the state news often that I remember.

Thankfully we don't sell fully automatic weapons to the public.

But, you can shoot a semi automatic as fast as you can pull the trigger.  A 30 round clip can be emptied in less than a minute.  The "kid" in Uvalde had 7 clips on him.  He bought himself Two Happy 18th Birthday presents.  Working part time at Wendy's.

They justify the public need for AR-15's and 30 round clips with self-defense.  From what?  The border?  Like tons of these immigrants are coming in armed.  The Government?   If they want you it's no real defense against a Chris Kyle or Blackhawk helicopter.  Say a home invasion?  Do you keep it handy all the time, out for the grandkids to play with when you go to the bathroom? If you need more than around 8-10 shots your likely already dead.  Using a hand gun or AR-15.  The movies are fiction.

Raise the age to 21.  Require background checks and safety training.  Limit magazine capacity.  For starters.

Off my soap box, for the moment.

 

Ron-

I am not expert on firearms, so I will pass the buck on that. IMHO, a six-shot revolver is all the defense anyone needs. 

I disagree with you "streets are safe" in the US. Not in Los Angeles anyway. I had several unprovoked incidents in Los Angeles, and even that was after mostly avoiding conflicts (do go out after dark in many parts of town, or any time to several parts of town).  

After living in Thailand for 10 years, my blood pressure is way down. I do not worry about the safety of my kids, or daily petty property theft (the norm in L.A.). 

I agree with you, a small town like Uvalde is probably safe enough. Small town America may be livable. 

IMHO, the US fails on delivering one of FDR's four freedoms: The freedom from fear. 

Not only the mass shootings, but in daily life. Every citizen deserves safe streets, safe schools. 

[Joseph McBride]

Uvalde, Texas, is where Dan Rather claimed to have been

on the morning of November 22, 1963, to interview

former VP John Nance Garner on his 95th birthday.

That strains credibility, since Rather was in Dallas

at the time of the assassination over the noon hour,

and Uvalde is 355 miles from Dallas. Rather claimed

he flew back. It is known that President Kennedy called

Garner that morning to give him birthday greetings.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Existing top-end inheritance tax rates in these countries. They've had these rates for years and years. 

Japan, 55%

South Korea, 50%

France, 45%

United Kingdom, 40%

United States, 40% (down from the year 2001 when it was 55%)

Spain, 34%

etc.

Would your eye-rolling friends be OK with 40% or 50% instead of 65% top-end inheritance tax going dedicated pass-through to a trust fund for Inheritance for All? 

Are they rolling their eyes because, as men of the world, they know its simply not possible to have a 40-65% inheritance tax going pass-through to Inheritance at All, because after all, in the real world no nation has ever had inheritance taxes in that range that have worked, apart from the outlier nations out there on the fringe that do such as the US, UK, and Japan?

Or are are they laughing because they find it utterly side-splitting hilarious to imagine that they could ever imagine themselves personally supporting such an inheritance tax on their estates funding Inheritance for All?

I fully understand that I have touched a nerve there. You are missing the point, Greg. The people you desire to tax mostly are not paying that % on monies they are passing down to the next generations of their families. Simply because they can quite legally avoid doing so by going to see a tax lawyer. There are multiple ways to do it. 

Another challenge is; it's also particularly hard to convince self made millionaires or billionaires that they should give away the monies that they toiled for. They think the system works and they are proof of it. 

PS I remember Bernie suggesting such proposals. I think he has a lot of integrity TBH, he is well meaning.

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Speaking of which, I have my own conspiracy theory on why there is industrial-strength demonization of Bill Gates coming from a thousand astroturf right-wing internet sources. Nothing like, as it was said of FDR, being a "traitor to one's class" to bring out the knives. Or as it was said of the Kennedys.

I remember earlier in the thread that you mentioned you were writing or had written a positive book about Bill Gates. What are you writing next; the virtues of JD Rockefeller? 🙂 
 

Why do you think Bill get's so much criticism amongst CT's. From my own experience, in the UK many of them would be on the political left, not the right. Of course such terminology is redundant. 
 

[George Govus]

Quote

Michael Dorn, executive director of Safe Havens International, which works to make schools safer, cautioned that it’s hard to get a clear understanding of the facts soon after a shooting.

“The information we have a couple of weeks after an event is usually quite different than what we get in the first day or two. And even that is usually quite inaccurate,” Dorn said. For catastrophic events, “you’re usually eight to 12 months out before you really have a decent picture.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-school-shooting-police-face-questions-response_n_628f8fcde4b0edd2d0209e00

Cough-cough. Fifty-nine years on, still trying for clarity on the Kennedy shooting.

Edit: no, this guy did not play Lt. Worf, or appear on Castle.

Edited May 27, 2022 by George Govus
clarity

[Douglas Caddy]

 

America may be beyond repair.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/opinion/uvalde-shooting.html?smid=url-share

[Greg Doudna]

 

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Another challenge is; it's also particularly hard to convince self made millionaires or billionaires that they should give away the monies that they toiled for. They think the system works and they are proof of it. 

That does not apply to the roughly half of the wealth in America which did not come to its owners as a result of doing any work or achievement. Roughly half of wealth of America is not self-made. Its inherited. A modern neo-feudal system, differing from medieval feudalism only in that there is some permeability or mobility for the motivated, but from data there is not a lot of permeability or mobility in terms of aggregate numbers. Owners of vast wealth, born into that wealth, entitled to receive as streams of eternal passive income rents from the rest of the people who work for a living. That steady stream of gentleman's income--passive income or transfer payments from sharecroppers who do the work producing the wealth. Standard financial education in America teaches as a first rule that the worst way to build wealth in terms of the tax code is to work for it--the best way is passive income and investment income since it is taxed at lower percentage rates than income earned from work. The owners of the fortunes of inherited wealth get more of their income passively, which receives more favorable tax treatment than the larger number of people receive whose income comes from working for it. 

For example, the Walmart heirs own as much as the bottom 40% of all Americans, the bottom 100 million of Americans, put together. They didn't produce that wealth. They inherited it. Walmart pays its workforce so little that Walmart employees cost the federal budget $300 million--a third of a billion-- per year in food stamps alone (and that's not counting other socialized costs of medical care and other things for the Walmart workforce) . . . because despite working very hard Walmart employees do not earn enough to eat. That is like a megabillionaire making his neighbors-- socializing costs via taxing the poor neighbors--pay for the hay to feed his horses rather than pay for the hay to feed his own horses out of his own megabillions.

Inheritance for All funded by a dedicated pass-through inheritance tax I believe would be supported by some superwealthy who do not now support existing inheritance taxes for this reason: part of the resistance to taxation is if one feels the money is being ripped off and going to corrupt purposes. That is a widely-held perception of tax revenue going into the general budget in the US. However, the Inheritance for All Piketty proposal would be a different matter, in which 100% of that inheritance tax (which would replace all other inheritance taxes) would be dedicated, go into a pass-through trust fund directly through to lump-sum citizen-birthright inheritances on every American's 25th birthday. The only costs would be the administrative costs of the trust fund itself. On analogy with the dedicated trust fund of the Social Security retirement insurance system, in which 99% of revenue (the payroll tax and self-employment tax for Social Security) goes to beneficiaries with only 1% in administrative costs (that 99% efficiency of the US Social Security bureaucracy being an efficiency which no private sector for-profit insurance companies [typically ca. 80%] or non-profit charities [typically ca. 50%] begin to match) . . . on that analogy, a similar 99% pass-through bureaucratic efficiency might be the case in Inheritance for All.

The very efficiency, the dedicated-earmarked feature (not going into general revenue), and the highly visible positive transformative effects of seeing tens of millions of hardworking American families have each of their children receive a stake at age 25 to start a business or buy a home or have assets in the bank, in addition to any wealth those families themselves are able to pass on (for too much of America that being close to zero) . . . those two factors, differing from existing inheritance taxes, I believe would have some super-wealthy--higher numbers than the approximately 0% that you believe or are projecting, whichever it is--in personal support of Inheritance for All, although the tax system is not dependent on receiving individual personal approval for its enforcement. 

You are aware that the vast majority of those who pay Social Security taxes support having the Social Security system paid for by those taxes? Maybe not on day one, but I could see a significant number of super-wealthy, after getting used to the idea, agreeable or even proud to be part of a system in which a third of their vast fortunes still go to their heirs (to rebuild above and beyond former levels in their lifetimes without much difficulty, even totally passive investments would do that), and two-thirds to inheritances to tens of million children of the rest of their less-better-off fellow Americans, also getting a start in life with the kind of opportunity that assets--capital--deliver. If they saw a dedicated trust fund was actually delivering that directly (not swallowed amorphously into general revenue never to be seen again). And closing of loopholes and reduction of gaming of the system are surely solvable issues, not insurmountable objections or reasons not to have a tax system in the first place. 

The alternative is continue with neo-feudalism and increasing wealth inequality. On a fundamental level, some are OK with that and some are not OK with that. This goes to core ideology and vision of the world.

You claim to decry neo-feudalism and yet you have not offered a program, and reject out of hand from a standpoint of ignorance the economist Piketty's serious proposal for such a program that would substantively address the problem you claim you care about. 

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

That does not apply to the roughly half of the wealth in America which did not come to its owners as a result of doing any work or achievement. Roughly half of wealth of America is not self-made. Its inherited. A modern neo-feudal system, differing from medieval feudalism only in that there is some permeability or mobility for the motivated, but from data there is not a lot of permeability or mobility in terms of aggregate numbers. Owners of vast wealth, born into that wealth, entitled to receive as streams of eternal passive income rents from the rest of the people who work for a living. That steady stream of gentleman's income--passive income or transfer payments from sharecroppers who do the work producing the wealth. Standard financial education in America teaches as a first rule that the worst way to build wealth in terms of the tax code is to work for it--the best way is passive income and investment income since it is taxed at lower percentage rates than income earned from work. The owners of the fortunes of inherited wealth get more of their income passively, which receives more favorable tax treatment than the larger number of people receive whose income comes from working for it. 

For example, the Walmart heirs own as much as the bottom 40% of all Americans, the bottom 100 million of Americans, put together. They didn't produce that wealth. They inherited it. Walmart pays its workforce so little that Walmart employees cost the federal budget $300 million--a third of a billion-- per year in food stamps alone (and that's not counting other socialized costs of medical care and other things for the Walmart workforce) . . . because despite working very hard Walmart employees do not earn enough to eat. That is like a megabillionaire making his neighbors-- socializing costs via taxing the poor neighbors--pay for the hay to feed his horses rather than pay for the hay to feed his own horses out of his own megabillions.

Inheritance for All funded by a dedicated pass-through inheritance tax I believe would be supported by some superwealthy who do not now support existing inheritance taxes for this reason: part of the resistance to taxation is if one feels the money is being ripped off and going to corrupt purposes. That is a widely-held perception of tax revenue going into the general budget in the US. However, the Inheritance for All Piketty proposal would be a different matter, in which 100% of that inheritance tax (which would replace all other inheritance taxes) would be dedicated, go into a pass-through trust fund directly through to lump-sum citizen-birthright inheritances on every American's 25th birthday. The only costs would be the administrative costs of the trust fund itself. On analogy with the dedicated trust fund of the Social Security retirement insurance system, in which 99% of revenue (the payroll tax and self-employment tax for Social Security) goes to beneficiaries with only 1% in administrative costs (that 99% efficiency of the US Social Security bureaucracy being an efficiency which no private sector for-profit insurance companies [typically ca. 80%] or non-profit charities [typically ca. 50%] begin to match) . . . on that analogy, a similar 99% pass-through bureaucratic efficiency might be the case in Inheritance for All.

The very efficiency, the dedicated-earmarked feature (not going into general revenue), and the highly visible positive transformative effects of seeing tens of millions of hardworking American families have each of their children receive a stake at age 25 to start a business or buy a home or have assets in the bank, in addition to any wealth those families themselves are able to pass on (for too much of America that being close to zero) . . . those two factors, differing from existing inheritance taxes, I believe would have some super-wealthy--higher numbers than the approximately 0% that you believe or are projecting, whichever it is--in personal support of Inheritance for All, although the tax system is not dependent on receiving individual personal approval for its enforcement. 

You are aware that the vast majority of those who pay Social Security taxes support having the Social Security system paid for by those taxes? Maybe not on day one, but I could see a significant number of super-wealthy, after getting used to the idea, agreeable or even proud to be part of a system in which a third of their vast fortunes still go to their heirs (to rebuild above and beyond former levels in their lifetimes without much difficulty, even totally passive investments would do that), and two-thirds to inheritances to tens of million children of the rest of their less-better-off fellow Americans, also getting a start in life with the kind of opportunity that assets--capital--deliver. If they saw a dedicated trust fund was actually delivering that directly (not swallowed amorphously into general revenue never to be seen again). And closing of loopholes and reduction of gaming of the system are surely solvable issues, not insurmountable objections or reasons not to have a tax system in the first place. 

The alternative is continue with neo-feudalism and increasing wealth inequality. On a fundamental level, some are OK with that and some are not OK with that. This goes to core ideology and vision of the world.

You claim to decry neo-feudalism and yet you have not offered a program, and reject out of hand from a standpoint of ignorance the economist Piketty's serious proposal for such a program that would substantively address the problem you claim you care about. 

Some excellent points.

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks Joe (also to George Govus and Sandy Larsen for earlier comments). Here is another question for you Chris B.: set aside whether super-wealthy would like or not like an inheritance tax that would fund inheritances for other children as well as their own. Suppose there was a serious Inheritance for All as outlined and suppose that after it got underway it was substantial. Could this be a more effective means to reduce poverty and homelessness than any other single use to which money could be put? 

(Piketty's book addressed the issue of guaranteed basic income versus lump-sum Inheritance for All, given the same amount of money allocated to each. Piketty had arguments that there was more bang to the buck--more good outcomes--from the lump-sum Inheritance idea than a monthly basic income stipend, comparing between the two. I believe Piketty supports both ideas and sees good consequences from both. But it is interesting that as an economist he made that argument that the lump-sum had greater good consequences than the monthly income supplement for life idea, between the two, even though both are net good. And there is a certain intuitive common sense to that. Studies have shown that having even a small amount of assets in the bank, as compared to having literally zero in the bank, transforms mentality and decision-making from immediate-present-thinking toward future-oriented thinking, movement from poverty mentality to asset-owner mentality. The studies show causation, not correlation, in this.)

But here is the point. What if one of the unintended consequences of Inheritance for All happened to be an end to most family poverty? Poverty is a known health risk, and less poverty would mean better health for Americans.

Poverty also correlates with and is a cause of crime and domestic abuse. Reduction in poverty would mean less crime and less domestic abuse. The costs of crime and domestic abuse are huge, and not simply financially. Huge economic and psychic benefits to having lower crime and domestic abuse rates, which would be expected and predicted if poverty were substantially reduced. 

Even if there were only partial movements in those directions, those could be unseen additional benefits to having some redistribution of inherited wealth go to Inheritance for All. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Douglas Caddy]

 

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/full-faith-and-credit-with-ethan?r=5pqyc&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web