6 ms·

>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 tha

>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.
  - crdoconnor 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. No, that's called a property management company. Around where I live they take ~10% of the rent and pass the rest on to the rentier. Try again.
    - ruste 10y ago
      Nope, rent management companies generally take a cut for doing the _Management_ portion. That means drawing up forms, selecting renters, doing background checks etc. The landlord still has to pay for or do repairs. I wouldn't be surprised if some management companies will arrange for repairs to be done as part of what they do, but it still comes out of the landlords pocket.
      - antisthenes 10y ago
        The problem with this is that even if you only just break even as a rent-seeker, you're still creating wealth for yourself and reducing the market of available properties for potential buyers, creating massive negative externalities. Landlords are doubly parasites.
        ruste 10y ago
        >even if you only just break even as a rent-seeker, you're still creating wealth for yourself That sounds utterly contradictory. Landlords provide a service by maintaining and managing properties. They assume most of the risks including damage to the property due to fire and natural disasters. They provide a means for people with little to no credit to afford a roof over their head when they can't get a loan. You are not just paying to live somewhere when you pay rent. You are paying for all of these services and more. If landlords were purely parasites they wouldn't be able to make any money. People would just go around them. Just because you don't like the need for the service they provide doesn't mean they don't provide a service.

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.
- crdoconnor 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. No, that's called a property management company. Around where I live they take ~10% of the rent and pass the rest on to the rentier. Try again.
  - ruste 10y ago
    Nope, rent management companies generally take a cut for doing the _Management_ portion. That means drawing up forms, selecting renters, doing background checks etc. The landlord still has to pay for or do repairs. I wouldn't be surprised if some management companies will arrange for repairs to be done as part of what they do, but it still comes out of the landlords pocket.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      The problem with this is that even if you only just break even as a rent-seeker, you're still creating wealth for yourself and reducing the market of available properties for potential buyers, creating massive negative externalities. Landlords are doubly parasites.
      - ruste 10y ago
        >even if you only just break even as a rent-seeker, you're still creating wealth for yourself That sounds utterly contradictory. Landlords provide a service by maintaining and managing properties. They assume most of the risks including damage to the property due to fire and natural disasters. They provide a means for people with little to no credit to afford a roof over their head when they can't get a loan. You are not just paying to live somewhere when you pay rent. You are paying for all of these services and more. If landlords were purely parasites they wouldn't be able to make any money. People would just go around them. Just because you don't like the need for the service they provide doesn't mean they don't provide a service.