Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Tracing back a sickness within American society

Tracing back a sickness within American society (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Just catching up on your local Tennessee news when you randomly stumbled upon that article?
Dude, I live in England and I know Tallahassee is in Florida- what with it being the capital and all that.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Dude, I live in England and I know Tallahassee is in Florida- what with it being the capital and all that.
Hahahaha you got me.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
I know. That's exactly what I said.

Neoliberalism doesn't empower individuals. It empowers corporations and wealthy elites.

Your success as a nation is entirely due to a philosophy of government that has been usurped and corrupted for the past 35 years.
I don't give a damn about neo-liberalism, nor do I back its viewpoints (I'm certainly no warhawk). You tried to tack on individualism to it, and that's what I found absurd.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't give a damn about neo-liberalism, nor do I back its viewpoints (I'm certainly no warhawk). You tried to tack on individualism to it, and that's what I found absurd.
Yes, I see the issue. I don't have any problems with individualism per se so we agree on that My initial reference to individualism was targeted at the way that neoliberalism has amplified it AND tagged on the corollary that individualism is ONLY about looking after yourself. "I'm alright Jack" and if you are are not, well that's just your own damn fault/problem.

I don't think I've ever heard that this was a state of mind that the founding fathers subscribed to. It is the one that has been prevalent during all the time that US society has been in decline, which was what you were discussing.

IN a thread that was about discussing reasons why society is becoming more polarised, less forgiving and as you put it, sick, which we all seem to agree it IS, then I would say neoliberalism is a major reason.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 03:59 PM
 
The way you all talk about neoliberalism it doesn't sound very liberal at all.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
This whole love letter post to capitalist neo-feudalism is just awful, but if as you say your worldview is truly predicated on respect for the strong and successful, you should be in favour of a 100% death tax yes? The successful peoples kids don't need help if they have inherited strength and successfulness from their parents, and if they haven't then we certainly don't want losers having money and influence.
You gave this about as much thought as our current liberal politicians tend to give to solutions, which is why they never work... So how would you stop them from just spending the money on their kids before they die? We already have a really high death tax that everybody gets out of. Rich people tend to have their money invested so if you owned 8% of a corporation when you die now government would inherit 8% that company. But I guess thats the goal, give government ultimate power.

If there were a way to restrain the amount of money spent on rich people's kids, I'd be for it. We certainly dont need more trust fund brats, Clintons, Bushes, or Trumps. Thing is, he who has the gold makes the rules & rules the world. Thats how it is, thats how it will always be. The American democratic middle class experiment was interesting & educational, but a failure due to the fact the masses will tend towards shallowness and un-thoughtful idiotic and most importantly SELFISH, movements and solutions.
the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The American democratic middle class experiment was interesting & educational, but a failure due to the fact the masses will tend towards shallowness and un-thoughtful idiotic and most importantly SELFISH, movements and solutions.

I don't think it was a failure. It was more or less working when the American society was working, but now we have weakened our educational system, displaced a lot of workers (technology is largely to blame), and the kind of work out there has skewed towards high tech engineering type positions that are much harder to hold in rural America. We are past the days when you can just show up in a factory, put in your time, and make a decent salary.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
This whole love letter post to capitalist neo-feudalism is just awful, but if as you say your worldview is truly predicated on respect for the strong and successful, you should be in favour of a 100% death tax yes?
Not even close to being as disgusting as the vulturous call of socialist confiscation. It's "neo-feudalist" to want your children to have your possessions when you die? That sounds demented.

Why do people, who never even knew a person in life, feel entitled to their wealth when they die? Wealth that's already been taxed, at least twice before. That person worked their whole life for what they had, so that they could pass on the fruits of that hard work to their loved ones, only to have strangers try to step in and take it? WTF did they do to earn that? It makes no sense, whatsoever.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't think it was a failure. It was more or less working when the American society was working, but now we have weakened our educational system, displaced a lot of workers (technology is largely to blame), and the kind of work out there has skewed towards high tech engineering type positions that are much harder to hold in rural America. We are past the days when you can just show up in a factory, put in your time, and make a decent salary.
On the flip side working remotely is becoming an ever bigger thing, so geographic location means less and less over time. The future is in technology (i.e. skilled labor). You're right that the time of showing up and doing 8 hours of manual labor is for the most part over. The education systems need to reflect the future of our economy and emphasize STEM, business management, etc to prep the next generation of the work force. We are in (near the end of) a transitional phase at the moment, going from a manual-service economy to an information service economy. Those two types aren't far off of each other, but the subtle differences make a huge difference in the jobs market.

It's not all doom and gloom - it's just a transition that the job market is lagging behind. a country of 330 million does not turn on a dime.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 03:25 PM
 
Not sure about that. Right now there's a severe shortage of mechanics; automotive, diesel, and airplane. The trade papers are packed with very lucrative jobs offers but Millennials seem to have little interest in careers that get their hands dirty. A lot of people, both men and women, entering college are making a big mistake, they should be entering a trade school instead. They're missing out on better pay, it's much less expensive than college, and they can be in the workforce (making high 5 figures) in less than 2 years.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
You gave this about as much thought as our current liberal politicians tend to give to solutions, which is why they never work... So how would you stop them from just spending the money on their kids before they die? We already have a really high death tax that everybody gets out of. Rich people tend to have their money invested so if you owned 8% of a corporation when you die now government would inherit 8% that company. But I guess thats the goal, give government ultimate power.

If there were a way to restrain the amount of money spent on rich people's kids, I'd be for it. We certainly dont need more trust fund brats, Clintons, Bushes, or Trumps. Thing is, he who has the gold makes the rules & rules the world. Thats how it is, thats how it will always be. The American democratic middle class experiment was interesting & educational, but a failure due to the fact the masses will tend towards shallowness and un-thoughtful idiotic and most importantly SELFISH, movements and solutions.
A conservative complaining about other people being selfish?

Its not about giving government ultimate power. They don't have ultimate power because they are lobbied and corruptly controlled by the rich. Those rich people get out of death taxes as well as most other taxes because they own the tax policy makers and the net result is that wealth accumulates with a tiny minority. The death tax isn't about giving the government power, its about redistributing the wealth and therefore the power held by the select few rich folks. Theres actually some kind of argument that if you can get from destitute to billionaire on merit that you might deserve to be influential, but if your kids inherit your wealth, they also inherit your influence and when they are worthless amoral, lazy trust fund brats thats bad for everyone. School dinners will start counting strawberry ice cream as part of your daily fruit allowance. If you're lucky.
The European aristocracy made this all systematic. The eldest male heir got the family seat, the title, the wealth and the influence predominantly to keep it out of the hands of others who weren't in the club. Your 1% are doing the same. They don't have titles yet but give them a little longer they'll probably get there.

Just don't be surprised when one of Chelsea Clinton's kids comes screaming out of the sky on a dragon and attacks the White House. Or something.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Not even close to being as disgusting as the vulturous call of socialist confiscation. It's "neo-feudalist" to want your children to have your possessions when you die? That sounds demented.

Why do people, who never even knew a person in life, feel entitled to their wealth when they die? Wealth that's already been taxed, at least twice before. That person worked their whole life for what they had, so that they could pass on the fruits of that hard work to their loved ones, only to have strangers try to step in and take it? WTF did they do to earn that? It makes no sense, whatsoever.
Its natural to want to give your wealth to your kids but ultimately it tends to do as much harm as good and society needs a mechanism to redistribute wealth or it just piles up with an elite minority. We've seen this happen once, we call it the dark ages. A lasting and fair system should rely on wars, revolutions or even family misfortunes to work properly should it?
If you have a better idea than inheritance taxes, by all means voice it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
On the flip side working remotely is becoming an ever bigger thing, so geographic location means less and less over time. The future is in technology (i.e. skilled labor). You're right that the time of showing up and doing 8 hours of manual labor is for the most part over. The education systems need to reflect the future of our economy and emphasize STEM, business management, etc to prep the next generation of the work force. We are in (near the end of) a transitional phase at the moment, going from a manual-service economy to an information service economy. Those two types aren't far off of each other, but the subtle differences make a huge difference in the jobs market.

It's not all doom and gloom - it's just a transition that the job market is lagging behind. a country of 330 million does not turn on a dime.
Agreed 100%!

There are also new opportunities for people interested in more manual/tactile/hands-on type stuff. For example, installing solar techs and other green energy technologies. That could be a whole other industry and a partial path forward. Another one might be transforming our transportation systems to include EV-friendly infrastructure as well as Hyperloop stuff, assuming that gets rolling soon.

It's pretty rough in the meantime though with outsourcing of older kinds of work, automation, and relatively rapid technological evolution continuing to eat our lunch. Tech will always evolve rapidly, but I expect many of these new concepts sticking around for a good while.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you have a better idea than inheritance taxes, by all means voice it.
One idea I have is developing the early startup investment world to be approachable to all people with disposable income, and perhaps setting up a system where a third party can help use these funds to invest in a bunch of early startups at time-of-death (of course, this would be optional in the event that the wealthy person doesn't or cannot be directly involved).

Startups are like lottery tickets, but if this was setup with a massive reward (e.g. exit events being completely tax free for the kids) perhaps it would encourage wealthy people setting aside a healthy amount of funds into traditional investments so that the kids are relatively comfortable, but putting more money into these riskier startup ventures and thereby really encouraging developing new businesses.

One problem with the whole startup investment world is that it is very network based. Startups are most interested in being able to associate with elite investors that can help them, both business/growth-wise and in splashy press. If you are not already in this world I don't think it is as easy as just showing up and saying "hey guys, I got a lot of money, hook me up and take my money!"

Whether it is a tech business or any other kind, getting stuff going is often challenging and a high risk/high potential reward proposition. However, the country's economy is only going to make it if there is a continuous cycle of new startups replacing older established companies. This could also be a way to stimulate that churn rather than just having Walmart be Walmart for the next 200 years.

I'm sure this idea has a lot of issues with it, but it's just something I came up with today actually.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
society needs a mechanism to redistribute wealth
No. You're not entitled to another person's material accomplishments in life, those belong to their loved ones.

We've seen this happen once, we call it the dark ages. A lasting and fair system should rely on wars, revolutions or even family misfortunes to work properly should it?
Horse-hockey. Western liberalism is in no way, shape, or form like the environment in the "dark ages". That comparison is entirely ridiculous. There is vast opportunity in the West to prosper without plundering another person's wealth, like vultures, after their death.

If you have a better idea than inheritance taxes, by all means voice it.
Work, invest, start a business, build a career, come up with a lucrative idea that people will pay for, etc.. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, in Western society can be financially secure and retire by 50 if they simply find work they enjoy, manage their money wisely, don't take upon debt (except perhaps a mortgage), and invest 10-15% of their annual pay in general market indicator funds. In fact, it's so damned easy it's ludicrous, yet many still view such a thing as witchcraft or "only for a select few", which is an outright lie, a ploy perpetrated by those who profit by keeping others from succeeding and in debt.

Doubt me? Add up all the money you pay in interest each year, then add in 7.5% annually compounded interest to it. Within 30 years the avg person would have enough to retire, easily. That's what needs to be taught in school, college, etc.. Our society would be wealthier, and more stable, beyond anyone's wildest dreams within 3 generations.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No. You're not entitled to another person's material accomplishments in life, those belong to their loved ones.
Unsustainable. Demonstrably so. And it harms your kids eventually. Your country doesn't have the history to realise it yet but they are playing the same game the exact same way.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Horse-hockey. Western liberalism is in no way, shape, or form like the environment in the "dark ages". That comparison is entirely ridiculous. There is vast opportunity in the West to prosper without plundering another person's wealth, like vultures, after their death.
Its nothing to do with liberalism, its free market capitalism and corrupt politics. You already have 1% holding 40% or whatever of the wealth. Three decades ago it was half as much and everyone who got a job could afford a house, kids and retirement. Now the kids stay home until 25, they can't buy houses on minimum wage and the 1% are still fuelling more wealth to themselves and sitting on it. And their kids throw bitchfits when they get the wrong colour Lambourghini for their 16th birthday.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Unsustainable. Demonstrably so. And it harms your kids eventually. Your country doesn't have the history to realise it yet but they are playing the same game the exact same way.
Wholly untrue. Wealth isn't a limited quantity, the more industrious a society becomes, the more wealth is created. This is some pretty basic stuff.

Its nothing to do with liberalism, its free market capitalism
Free market capitalism IS liberalism. Liberty is market freedom and connected directly to individual freedom to create personal wealth. Again, you're horribly confused, believing that money somehow has a set limit and that accruing it somehow restricts others from making more. Baffling.

You already have 1% holding 40% or whatever of the wealth.
They aren't "holding" anything, it's what they have and that's fine, because MORE can be made, because it isn't a LIMITED resource. Are you getting this yet? Maybe?

Geez, I'm going to stop there. It legitimately confounds me that people still believe the way you do and it hurts my head trying to think the way you do.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 04:35 PM
 
You sound like the captain of the B Ark. Have fun spending your leaves.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You sound like the captain of the B Ark. Have fun spending your leaves.
^^Sad drivel.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You already have 1% holding 40% or whatever of the wealth. Three decades ago it was half as much and everyone who got a job could afford a house, kids and retirement.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They aren't "holding" anything, it's what they have and that's fine, because MORE can be made, because it isn't a LIMITED resource.
Since the US dollar is a fiat currency, more can be created. In our case, by the Federal Reserve. And your scenario might even work if that new money were sent to the 99% to trickle up. The 1% could hoard as much of the value as they liked, so long as it didn't create scarcity at the bottom end.

But that's not how it works. The Fed creates money by:

• Borrowing from the largest banks, then paying back with interest. The interest is the new money. So new money is sent only to the biggest banks. This was stepped up after the wall street / home mortgage crash. Instead of forcing bad banks into bankruptcy to make way for startups, they were deemed "too big to fail" and money was shovelled at them. It didn't go to the account holders, or the employees. It went to the stock holders, or was turned into company assets. Again value for stockholders, who are disproportionally at the upper end.

• By purchasing and holding T-bills. Essentially bankrolling federal spending. The government does send money to individuals (social security), but most of that is paid for live via payroll taxes. Discretionary spending does send some money back to individuals (via services mostly) but it would be more fiscally accurate to say those T-bills helped cover military expenses. Some of that goes to GI salaries, the rest goes mostly to corporate contracts.

In both cases, the new money tends to go very favorably to the 1%. Having new money fix the scarcity problem at the bottom would only work if that's where the new money went. That's not how it works today.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 08:22 PM
 
Anyone else find it odd that someone who advocates hard work and being self-made is most insistent that their kids get as much privilege as possible instead of working hard and becoming self-made themselves? Especially given how 'easy' it is for anyone to do?

It almost feels like its less about holding on to your hard-earnings, and more about making sure that no-one else benefits from them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 11:38 PM
 
War, I'm not ready to agree on inheritance taxes. It's essentially confiscating property upon death, and it's easy to beat anyway. Just put things in joint names with your kids (and hope they don't sell the house). As CTP pointed out, the money has already been taxed.

Income taxes used to scale up to 50%, though only for obscene income levels. ie - corporate executives today. Restore that, including capital gains taxes. Definitely tax capital gains as income, where they invest money, but do no work themselves. And close the assorted loopholes, like the foreign stuff that you or I can't use to avoid taxes.

If progressive income taxes were all paid, including capital gains, I'd be fine with no inheritance tax. Maybe the next generation will live wisely, maybe they'll develop expensive tastes.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2017, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Anyone else find it odd...
Why would they? They're leaving a legacy for their loved ones to manage and build upon, that you feel complete strangers have a right to that legacy, the fruition of a person's labor and financial success, is, not to put too fine a point on it, rather disgusting.

It appears that you simply don't understand, or don't want to understand, that wealth isn't fixed, that value and resources are created every second of every day, and that there are no limits to it. It isn't like there's one jar of magic beans and a set group of people control how and where those beans are doled out. Do you also believe for a stock to rise in value that other stocks must be falling? This is a complete head-scratcher for me.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 12:02 AM
 
the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 11:49 AM
 
So you're just going to ignore the point that rich kids tend to be assholes and therefore growing up with too much wealth is bad for people and those around them? And you're going to ignore the accusation that your real problem is that you just don't want people you consider undeserving getting any of your money, and you're going to ignore the fact that all the super-duper methods of wealth creation are just another set of rules and mechanisms that have been entirely co-opted by the rich to fatten themselves and so we still have a distribution problem?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 12:17 PM
 
Do rich kids have a notable incidence rate of assholery greater than their rich parents?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do rich kids have a notable incidence rate of assholery greater than their rich parents?
Sometimes it takes a few generations but they start out spoiled and out of touch and end up inbred with strange notions of purity.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 04:54 PM
 
That took an unexpected turn.

Strange notions of purity?
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It isn't like there's one jar of magic beans and a set group of people control how and where those beans are doled out.
Of course the Tories have just fought an election here almost entirely based on the idea that there IS just one jar of magic beans, and that it is therefore really REALLY important that none of them get accidentally given to nurses or teachers.

The same party that discovered immediately afterwards that there were more beans, but only for their DUP friends.

While it's true that in theory the number of beans in unlimited, if the people with the power to create infinite beans are very VERY keen to persuade you that that's not possible and that only they can have the now limited beans available. Well it turns out we all get to live in a bean limited world.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That took an unexpected turn.

Strange notions of purity?
European aristocracy got to a point where they believed themselves to be superior to the peasants so they would only marry other aristocrats, even frowning on 'new money'. Ultimately they all ended up marrying their own cousins and sometimes siblings.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 08:35 PM
 
Hence part of the origin of the term blue blood.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
European aristocracy got to a point where they believed themselves to be superior to the peasants so they would only marry other aristocrats, even frowning on 'new money'. Ultimately they all ended up marrying their own cousins and sometimes siblings.
Yeah, umm... pretty sure we solved that problem by whacking your ancestors.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yeah, umm... pretty sure we solved that problem by whacking your ancestors.
Wow, you do love taking credit for stuff don't you? :/
I think you'll find that genetic dead end is the reason you aren't still a colony.

At any rate, your elites are in danger of repeating some of the same mistakes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Wow, you do love taking credit for stuff don't you? :/
What? Too soon?

European aristocracy thinks they're better than the peasants because that's literally what aristocracy is. Not superiority by birth, but superiority by birthright.

Birthright is why Europe has institutionalized cousin****ing.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 01:51 AM
 
I think all of this is non-sense: each generation there was something that supposedly would lead to its doom, why it would turn out worse than the previous generation that grew up without that new technology. There was books, radio, TV, the internet and now smartphones. People who are afraid of change immediately conflate a change with a change for the worse.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 01:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
War, I'm not ready to agree on inheritance taxes. It's essentially confiscating property upon death, and it's easy to beat anyway. Just put things in joint names with your kids (and hope they don't sell the house). As CTP pointed out, the money has already been taxed.
I think the overarching point is to have a society with a lot of upward (and hence also larger downward) mobility. If money stops circulating because it concentrates at the top where it can't all be used, it is worse for everyone. Like you wrote in your post, in the post-WW2 era the US taxed rich people at what would now be seen as obscene rates, but that is certainly a big contributing factor as to why there was a more equal distribution of wealth (and to the US paying back the debt accrued during the wars in Europe and the Pacific). That and social mobility are the key to a stable society, and one of the biggest dangers we are seeing in the US and parts of Europe.

I'm okay with inheritance taxes if people want lower tax rates while they are alive, or with a higher tax rate (and all income should be taxed at the same rate) but no or very little inheritance tax.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What? Too soon?

European aristocracy thinks they're better than the peasants because that's literally what aristocracy is. Not superiority by birth, but superiority by birthright.

Birthright is why Europe has institutionalized cousin****ing.
When exactly do you imagine you fixed this?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 11:15 AM
 
1776
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 03:21 PM
 
What effect do you imagine that had on European aristocracy? And how exactly?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 04:41 PM
 
We fixed it in America.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 05:11 PM
 
Yes, yes, no class system here. Nope.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, in Western society can be financially secure and retire by 50 if they simply find work they enjoy, manage their money wisely, don't take upon debt (except perhaps a mortgage), and invest 10-15% of their annual pay in general market indicator funds.
Did it. Doing it. No way I can retire at 50. No car loans, no credit cards, no debt besides the mortgage, which was refinanced into a 15 year when rates were low a few years back, I'll own my house by the time I'm 40, if not earlier.

My salary puts me firmly middle class. If I put 15% into general funds as you recommend (I'm doing ~17% right now), by the time I'm 50 I'll have enough saved to draw ~40% of my current salary until I'm 87. That's...not really livable. Retiring at 60 gives me 85% of my salary in perpetuity, but 60 is not 50.

Is retiring at 50 possible? For sure! But trying to assert that investing 15% of your salary is somehow magically all it takes to retire 15 years earlier than is traditional? That's stupid.

Now if I took my mortgage and invested that once I finished paying off the house, that might buy me a few years. Lifestyle changes - keeping a car longer before replacing it, forgoing date nights, vacations, and other experiences would also add a year or two. But saving 15% of your salary? Yeah, you're not retiring at 50 on that.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 07:27 PM
 
@Laminar
Seconded. CTP’s vision how to retire at 50 is a pipe dream for most people, I’ll still have teenage children by then whom I would like to offer a standard of living and an education that I think they should get. Due to my job I couldn’t save up that much for retirement (I have lived in three different countries over the last five years). I’m currently saving putting away 25 % of my income, but I need to use some of that to pay for the birth and all the baby paraphernalia. I have paid off but about $1500 of my student loans and have no debt otherwise, although my wife still has to pay off her student loans. My salary is quite good, but over the next few years my wife likely won’t be able to work (because we are having children), and living on one salary with more mouths to feed is definitely going to leave a mark. (I’m just glad work pays for my Macs … )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Yes, yes, no class system here. Nope.
One which causes the elite to be inbred?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One which causes the elite to be inbred?
They start out a bit off, then they get gradually worse. You're on the way. Give it a couple more generations.



I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Is retiring at 50 possible? For sure! But trying to assert that investing 15% of your salary is somehow magically all it takes to retire 15 years earlier than is traditional? That's stupid.
Wait, you thought what I posted was a complete financial plan? Wrapped-up in a few sentences? Seriously? And you're calling me stupid? An individual retirement plan takes a great deal of preparation, much more than you'll find in a forum post, tailored to each family's needs. I was pointing out general ideas, if you're falling short then there are areas you aren't accounting for. We both know this was just another one of your typical potshots at another's expense, though. I believe you're incapable of better.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Wait, you thought what I posted was a complete financial plan? Wrapped-up in a few sentences? Seriously? And you're calling me stupid? An individual retirement plan takes a great deal of preparation, much more than you'll find in a forum post, tailored to each family's needs. I was pointing out general ideas, if you're falling short then there are areas you aren't accounting for. We both know this was just another one of your typical potshots at another's expense, though. I believe you're incapable of better.
Laminar didn't write you were stupid, but that your suggestion it's possible for anyone in the Western world (your words) to retire at 50 is stupid. To check the feasibility of your suggestion, you just need to look at how much money you accrue over a period of time (in my case about 15 years and I assume Laminar is of a similar fine vintage), to consider all debts your family holds and certain projected expenses (e. g. how many children you have and up until what point you have to and want to support their education).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They start out a bit off, then they get gradually worse. You're on the way. Give it a couple more generations.


     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 11:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Laminar didn't write you were stupid
Are you going to stand there and tell me that jumping into a conversation and announcing that what a person is saying is stupid isn't inflammatory? Either way, I didn't report him, I let it go.

but that your suggestion it's possible for anyone in the Western world (your words) to retire at 50 is stupid.
No it isn't. I've worked on too many effective retirement plans with that same goal to believe otherwise, but suit yourself. Of course, you can't be 30+, start a retirement plan, and hope to retire at 50, that's ludicrous. However, if you start planning as a young adult fresh out of college or trade school, 50 is an attainable goal. One thing I know for sure, you certainly can't do it if you don't believe it's possible.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Oct 3, 2017 at 12:07 AM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2017, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No it isn't. I've worked on too many effective retirement plans with that same goal to believe otherwise, but suit yourself. Of course, you can't be 30+, start a retirement plan, and hope to retire at 50, that's ludicrous. However, if you start planning as a young adult fresh out of college or trade school, 50 is an attainable goal.
Who said I started with that in my mid-30s? I started after graduating with my Master's degree more than 10 years ago. Independently of my personal situation, I still think you are wildly overestimating the financial reach of most people.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
One thing I know for sure, you certainly can't do it if you don't believe it's possible.
A can-do attitude is important in life, but you can't just will things into existence. When you are an adult, it is important to be realistic and responsible.

If retiring with 50 were my primary goal and I subjugated my career choices accordingly, I'm actually quite confident I have a reasonable shot at being one of the select few who could choose to retire with 50. Instead of academia, I'd be in a boring-as-eff job in a consultancy, a bank or an insurance. But I think if too many in society aim to do that, that'd lead to a very unhealthy society: you work for 25 years (25~50), less than a third than your life expectancy (currently in the low- to mid-80s depending on where you are). We should work longer, not less.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,