WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 16:01:42 +0000

ugggh. I think people know my position on this already...

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 16:26:55 +0000

No, I don't. Do you think that there is no danger to a just society as wealth accumulates along blood lines?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 16:31:44 +0000

People who have earned money get to decide what to do with their money. If some other third party steps in and tells you what or even makes you do stuff with money that that individual has earned, I personally am opposed to it. You can redistribute wealth to people who are more "deserving" of it - we live in a society where you are provided with infinite possibilities to earn $$$ - go earn it - use self reliance and not some other mechanism.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 16:32:56 +0000

the above post should read you CANT JUST resdistrubute wealth to a party that is more "deserving" or in need of it....

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-22 17:37:25 +0000

I think people should have to earn their estate. The board will be me and a bunch of other people, and we'll decide what the kids need to do to make them more well-adjusted and better grounded members of society.

Posted by on 2004-09-22 17:44:16 +0000

Infinite possibilities--but an equal chance for everyone? Are the opportunities the same for a child growing up in a tiny apartment full of lead paint, attending a dysfunctional school, etc., as for a child growing up at a comfortable home in the suburbs with money for books, tutoring, SAT prep classes, etc.? Why can't we as a society say it is important to us to provide enough social services that even poor kids will stand a decent chance of graduating from high school, going to college--and grad school--and entering a productive middle class? Wealthy people's wealth is derived from their economic interactions with the rest of society. It's not created in a vacuum out sheer enterprise and resourcefulness. Society is within its rights to collectively say to each aspiring millionaire, "we've set up this economic system that will allow you to accumulate more wealth than your neighbors, through your own pluck, talent, and dogged tenacity; but in exchange for that opportunity you'll have to play by these particular rules...." Property rights have no objective existence. They are social constructs. Any society should therefore be able to democratically decide how far property rights extend. Such rules are only unjust if they apply unequally to different people--for instance if women are not allowed to inherit property but men are, or if African Americans are taxed at a higher rate than whites. But our rules apply the same to each of us--if I accumulate as much money as Bill Gates, my earnings will be taxed at the same level his are, and if he loses all his money and winds up poor like me, his earnings will be taxed at the same level as mine. There is no injustice in this. Done ranting now.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-22 17:48:16 +0000

Damn, that shit was tonsorial.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 18:18:27 +0000

The bit about people's wealth being derived from economic interactions within a society is key. To pick on Bill Gates, would he be as fabulously wealthy if he was born in Nicaragua? Probably not, so I argue he owes a bit of his wealth back to the society from which he got it. I agree that people should be able to use their money as they see fit. On the other hand, where is the self-reliance or other innovative mechanism shown by a person who is born into a million dollar trust fund? Who is tonsorial autodidact? The prose might be a tip off...

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 19:28:26 +0000

But Terry, If you have $$$ In A Trust Fund, if you are the trustee, you get to decide who is "deserving" of the money.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 19:52:18 +0000

My point is there is no self-reliance evident in the sheer luck of being born as a trustee of a trust fund. There is no merit. I'm not against trust funds, per se, or the judgement of the trustee. I'm against the unrestricted accumulation of wealth within families without the acknowledgement that the creation of the wealth is dependent upon the society within which it was generated. "Acknowledgement" here means a reasonable tax upon time of death. I'm fine with nepotism too, as long as the person receiving the leg-up then demostrates they are worthy of the preferential treatment.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 20:25:52 +0000

You guys don't get it though: a beneficiary of a trust doesn't have to earn anything. If I have a large amount of money that I made, worked hard for and carefully invested, If I decide I want to give it to my no good lazy bum friend joe who has never worked a day in his life, thats my right. What claim does an outside party have on dipping their hands into my money?

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 20:49:10 +0000

I get it, I realise a beneficiary of a trust doesn't have to earn anything. There is no intrinsic merit exhibited by the trustee. If one of the goals of our society is such that each and every member has an equal opportunity to rise to the top, based on their own merit, doesn't inheritence of huge sums of money seem to thwart that goal? I like how tonsorial put it: You don't accumulate wealth in a vacuum, solely on your own. Otherwise, you'd be a hermit, not much money in that. You're dependent on the economic constructs present in this society, so society has a just claim on part of your wealth.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 21:01:39 +0000

so you suggest that outside parties should be able to regulate people's accumulation of wealth that don't "deserve" it? Sounds like Socialism to Me...

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 21:10:45 +0000

C'mon, Rich... Do you agree or disagree that a person's economic ability is infleunced by the society within which they live? I believe that the our society deserves some credit for a person's ability to create wealth. I think the term 'outside party' is incorrect, if you are using that to mean the society within which we live.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 01:02:03 +0000

I get and even appreciate the sentiment behind the "we are all a product of our environment" idea, I just feel like people are also able to break the mold of their environment, have faith in their abilities, and perservere past boundaries without necessarily using the default "I am unable to reach my goals because I'm not as privliged as you are" reasoning. Accumulating wealth is difficult. Period. Even for people who have tax breaks, trust funds, dirty 527s, whatever. Look at all the succesful business people who file bankruptcy... If it was easy to accumulate wealth, why would anyone work hard? There certainly wouldn't be any reward if you busted your ass, made some smart business decisions and were then required to involuntarily give up that for which you worked for. I STRONGLY disagree with the sentiment that people in America dont have a high level of opportunity no matter who you are. Tonsorialk says [quote:6f06901393]Infinite possibilities--but an equal chance for everyone? Are the opportunities the same for a child growing up in a tiny apartment full of lead paint, attending a dysfunctional school, etc., as for a child growing up at a comfortable home in the suburbs with money for books, tutoring, SAT prep classes, etc.?[/quote:6f06901393] Life wont always be fair for you. You will have to work hard to overcome those that lie, cheat, or steal their way to the top, a brand of individual which a capitalist society produces a lot of, but where else will you go for opportunity? Germany? France? Iraq? Even if some of the odds are against you, it doesn't mean that you can wave a white flag and say you will never get anywhere because people are holding you back. That's a pretty negative, pessimistic defeatist attitude. A lot of people rise above their limitations in life, I feel its time that this side of the argument deserves the level of importance the "product of my environment" argument receives in America. seacrest out.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 01:07:42 +0000

[quote:40a43e7be8]Property rights have no objective existence. They are social constructs. Any society should therefore be able to democratically decide how far property rights extend. Such rules are only unjust if they apply unequally to different people--for instance if women are not allowed to inherit property but men are, or if African Americans are taxed at a higher rate than whites. But our rules apply the same to each of us--if I accumulate as much money as Bill Gates, my earnings will be taxed at the same level his are, and if he loses all his money and winds up poor like me, his earnings will be taxed at the same level as mine. There is no injustice in this. [/quote:40a43e7be8] I might have been to quick to post that last piece. I am still chewing on some of Tonsorial's argument here - it is a damn good post. sorry if I sound like a grumpy bastard....