5 ms·

You are simplifying to the level of dishonesty.

crdoconnor 10y ago
There's really no other way to characterize non-gift exchanges of wealth that the recipient did not create. The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  Your lack of self awareness is incredible. How are you yourself different from the vilified "rent seeker"?
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Instead of consuming more value than I create, I create more value than I am compensated for. Because I derive my income from my work.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      And thus you are seeking rent from those with more property than yourself. Fantastic.
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        People who own yield bearing properties (e.g. landlords - not me) are extracting value from others. You can spin that fact any way that you want but it's still a fact. That's why I don't call it redistributive taxation. It's re-redistributive taxation.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  >The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation. At least we're in agreement that parasitism is not a desirable outcome. We seem to disagree on what constitutes parasitic behavior. First of all, I think that the idea of estate tax is lunacy in and of itself but now that we have it, let's think about what you're saying; that it's not okay for an individual upon death to transfer his/her wealth to a person of their choosing (whom they may have mentored to further a legacy they were passionate about) but that it is okay for the proletariat to forcibly acquire said wealth because they know better? How is that not outright theft? I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead. If I would like to leave it to a mentee of mine to further some work I had began, then being the acquirer of said wealth, I deserve that right. You know, this experiment is already done and dusted. Any time you advocate for egalitarianism, look at the results of "The Berlin Wall's great human experiment" then be afraid. What sort of government shoots its own people to prevent them from running away from the horrid conditions they've created? I'll tell you which one, a socialist/communist one.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >How is that not outright theft? It's re-redistributive. Taxation somewhat compensates for the redistributive effect of the rentier economy, which you could also characterize as theft for similar reasons. >I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead And I would like not to have to dedicate 40% of my income to renting property from non-productive (sometimes anti-productive) members of society. Euthananize the rentier and I'll be happy for you to keep 100% of the wealth you earned with actual work. Until that time, no.
    - ruste 10y ago
      That non-productive/anti-productive member of society is the one that keeps your appliances running, makes sure your roof isn't leaking, and fixes your pipes when they leak. They're not just sitting back and watching the money role in. Managing property, moreover doing so profitably, is not a kick back and relax kind of job. You're welcome to buy and maintain your own property if you'd like. It would cost you about as much in the long run.

There's really no other way to characterize non-gift exchanges of wealth that the recipient did not create. The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation.

JanezStupar 10y ago
Your lack of self awareness is incredible. How are you yourself different from the vilified "rent seeker"?
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Instead of consuming more value than I create, I create more value than I am compensated for. Because I derive my income from my work.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    And thus you are seeking rent from those with more property than yourself. Fantastic.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      People who own yield bearing properties (e.g. landlords - not me) are extracting value from others. You can spin that fact any way that you want but it's still a fact. That's why I don't call it redistributive taxation. It's re-redistributive taxation.
_andromeda_ 10y ago
>The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation. At least we're in agreement that parasitism is not a desirable outcome. We seem to disagree on what constitutes parasitic behavior. First of all, I think that the idea of estate tax is lunacy in and of itself but now that we have it, let's think about what you're saying; that it's not okay for an individual upon death to transfer his/her wealth to a person of their choosing (whom they may have mentored to further a legacy they were passionate about) but that it is okay for the proletariat to forcibly acquire said wealth because they know better? How is that not outright theft? I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead. If I would like to leave it to a mentee of mine to further some work I had began, then being the acquirer of said wealth, I deserve that right. You know, this experiment is already done and dusted. Any time you advocate for egalitarianism, look at the results of "The Berlin Wall's great human experiment" then be afraid. What sort of government shoots its own people to prevent them from running away from the horrid conditions they've created? I'll tell you which one, a socialist/communist one.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >How is that not outright theft? It's re-redistributive. Taxation somewhat compensates for the redistributive effect of the rentier economy, which you could also characterize as theft for similar reasons. >I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead And I would like not to have to dedicate 40% of my income to renting property from non-productive (sometimes anti-productive) members of society. Euthananize the rentier and I'll be happy for you to keep 100% of the wealth you earned with actual work. Until that time, no.
  - ruste 10y ago
    That non-productive/anti-productive member of society is the one that keeps your appliances running, makes sure your roof isn't leaking, and fixes your pipes when they leak. They're not just sitting back and watching the money role in. Managing property, moreover doing so profitably, is not a kick back and relax kind of job. You're welcome to buy and maintain your own property if you'd like. It would cost you about as much in the long run.