3 ms·

Actually forcing people to spend their money before death would be really good for the economy (despite you picking illegal activities for the negative connotat

Actually forcing people to spend their money before death would be really good for the economy (despite you picking illegal activities for the negative connotation.) And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption. Inherited wealth is anathema to meritocracies.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Actually forcing people to spend their money before death would be really good for the economy (despite you picking illegal activities for the negative connotation.) Well, this is were we clearly disagree. I am very certain that if i knew that i was going to die in 6 months, id be burning all my money into some kickass 6 months with "Burguers" and "Premium Tinder accounts". Consumption vs Investment is a core battle between Keynesian and Chicago School economics, so it depends on which you subscribe. > meritocracies. I actually do wonder who argues in favor of meritocracies. Sure as hell not liberal-economics. "Get what we deserve? I hope to god we don't get what we deserve" - Milton Friedman. > And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption. This just compromises the original concept of equality of opportunity: if you do that, anyone below 50k will be in an unfavourable position relatively. So what you did with that limit is imposing something on a group, intended to be a minority that wouldnt be able to repeal such rule. The fact that these rules end up like this has been extensively exposed by people like MF.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I'm no Friedman acolyte. Are you actually opposed to meritocracy?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    I think the concept of a meritocracy requires someone to decide what is meritocratic and all goes to hell from there. Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people". I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people". That's exactly what our justice system is... Sometimes we fail at abstracting our morality to the courts but that's exactly what our goal is. >I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic. So your logic is "people usually use meritocracy as a knock against capitalism" and then establish your premise? "meritocracy is bad"? Doesn't make any sense. A perfectly meritocratic system doesn't exist and probably never will but systems which try to promote equality of opportunity are generally good. Our defense of "meritocracy" comes from the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Behind it, it becomes obvious you would want to live in a society which provides a relatively equal chance for everybody and which, if you seize that chance, will reward you.

conanbatt 9y ago

> Actually forcing people to spend their money before death would be really good for the economy (despite you picking illegal activities for the negative connotation.) Well, this is were we clearly disagree. I am very certain that if i knew that i was going to die in 6 months, id be burning all my money into some kickass 6 months with "Burguers" and "Premium Tinder accounts". Consumption vs Investment is a core battle between Keynesian and Chicago School economics, so it depends on which you subscribe. > meritocracies. I actually do wonder who argues in favor of meritocracies. Sure as hell not liberal-economics. "Get what we deserve? I hope to god we don't get what we deserve" - Milton Friedman. > And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption. This just compromises the original concept of equality of opportunity: if you do that, anyone below 50k will be in an unfavourable position relatively. So what you did with that limit is imposing something on a group, intended to be a minority that wouldnt be able to repeal such rule. The fact that these rules end up like this has been extensively exposed by people like MF.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I'm no Friedman acolyte. Are you actually opposed to meritocracy?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I think the concept of a meritocracy requires someone to decide what is meritocratic and all goes to hell from there. Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people". I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people". That's exactly what our justice system is... Sometimes we fail at abstracting our morality to the courts but that's exactly what our goal is. >I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic. So your logic is "people usually use meritocracy as a knock against capitalism" and then establish your premise? "meritocracy is bad"? Doesn't make any sense. A perfectly meritocratic system doesn't exist and probably never will but systems which try to promote equality of opportunity are generally good. Our defense of "meritocracy" comes from the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Behind it, it becomes obvious you would want to live in a society which provides a relatively equal chance for everybody and which, if you seize that chance, will reward you.