|
|
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It would be really intestesting to find data on how dynamic these income classes are. Do people really move freely - or is it difficult to become poor once you are very rich? I think you would have to be spectacularly stupid to lose 100 million dollars. The low end is likely to be much more dynamic that the upper end, perhaps. Quote:
Yes, this is my hunch too. Botnst, I'd be interested to hear your view on a closely related (it may even be the same) issue, that of making money from money (i.e. usury). This is still a taboo in Islam, and was in Christianity (although they allowed Jews to perform this function). If I have a million dollars of excess wealth, I can easily 'make' another 50K in a year through a safe investment. But if I have a thousand dollars, I get fifty dollars (sorry if this is laboured). The point is, I haven't actually done anything for my extra cash. Does this fit with the meritocracy model - how is this conceptually different from inheritance? |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
jjl/botnst, this is probably the most boring and flawed disussion yet, but let me ask you a question. If all your assumption are right, how do you explain that relatively large % of immigrants coming to this country w/o any means whatsoever (my family arrived with a $120 and 4 suitcases ) and with very little assitance from the government achieve so much??? (BTW, you still did not answer to my previous questions).
And, second, are you telling me that after I work my ass off to make life easier for my children (err.. child), and after paying taxes on my income, on my SS, now HE has to pay taxes on the same money already taxed by everybody at least once before? Oh, right! if I'm correct, you want (after my death) to take MY money, EARNED by MY hard work from my epileptic child for whom I worked so hard for say, 20 years of my life, only because YOU and YOU alone believe somebody else, whom I do not know, do not owe anything, and who possibly did not contribute to the society diddly squat, deserves it more?? please explain it to me , because my poor, underdeveloped immigrant mind cannot grasp that, no doubt, higher form of liberal logic. And finally, since both the state and the feds classified my son as a special needs child, I ALONE believe that any money YOU earn in the next 15 years (ok, maybe 50% of it) should go directly to my son, because he deserve them more than you. Please, show me (using YOUR logic), where I'm wrong to demand it???? .
__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law 1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car" 1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home) 1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!" |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Piotr, if its such a boring and crappy discussion why get involved? Just ignore it. If it bores you go post elsewhere. I find much of what is said tedious and stupid, all of the time, but I don't have a go at people because of it - they have a right to be tedious and stupid.
As for the content, please don't take it personally. I read plenty of stuff here I find morally outrageous - we all will, if we have any thought-through political/economic/social opinions at all. Believe me, I am interested in fairness and a better world and all things sugar and spice, just trying to have a discussion and perhaps learn a few things... Here's what I think about what you said, for what its worth. You should pay your taxes once, at source = income tax, but then keep your money, and so should your son, untaxed, particularly given the circumstances. You shouldn't have to pay tax twice, UNLESS we are talking huge sums (millions). Because of the positive feedback involved in our economic system, my view is that inheritance tax is necessary, BUT it must be correctly applied. I think it is not good (for all of us) for individuals to accumulate billions, and it is even worse for such sums to be inherited. But I think it IS wrong that people of low and middle income are taxed on inheritance at all (I've experienced this). It just a matter of a fair system that rewards talent, initiative, hard work etc., but doesn't $crew the weak. I'd rather pay higher taxes to ensure that those who can't compete on the same level get some of my money, yes. But that's probably that dirty word, socialism. That's all. I have no problem at all with immigrants 'making good' - good luck to them, I wish everyone could do it (there's the rub). So I don't understand you ire here - did I give some other impression? It wasn't meant. We have a lot of immigrants here in UK and they are not being made welcome (people say they just live of welfare), but I guess it is different in US? regards J |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Botnst, I understand your argument about money, but perhaps the issue really IS that it has no intrinsic worth? At least if I'm a manufactururer and expand my wealth in corporeal goods by creating them anew, I have made something tangible of use to everyone, but if I play the stockmarket and turn 100m into 110m, what have I done? Perhaps to answer my own question, I have just participated in the optimisation process and been rewarded for it proportionally. But I don't agree with myself here.
I had no idea immigration to the US was so great - I guess I'm wrong about that one. Mea culpa. Your are being naughty with your Modest Proposal - you know it is the POOR children who get roasted! BTW, since you're a botanist (I'm a biologist, did a Ph.D. in evolutionary genetics a long time ago), do you think there is an analogy between the observation/theory that the rate of natural selection is proportional to the amount of genetic variation, and the claim that free market economies seem to NEED a large variation in income? Do some of us HAVE to be poor (or rich) otherwise things come apart? J |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Botnst
Worth of money? I'm confused where you're going with this. Hey, that's OK, I'm confused myself about it. This is probably even more out of my depth, but it occurs to me that Bill Gates really doesn't have 43 billion dollars, because he can't *lose* it (well, he could put it on a horse...). If you can't spend it (turn it into something you can consume), perhaps it is not like the money we use. Just a thought. Taxonomist, thick older brother of evolutionary genetics. Prior to that I worked in oil exploration and before that, US Navy. Worked in neotropical Araliaceae in grad school but spent most of my mercifully (for academia) brief professional botanical career at an arboretum. Now I make maps. Interesting life. Mine is much duller. Industry (analytical chemistry)University (degrees), University (research), Research Institute (research). Now moved into ecology/biogeography, rather than genetics. Doing/done some forestry work - bit in Alaska. I thought Scotland was pretty until I saw *that* stuff! Do you subscribe to ecolog-l? The discussion in your second paragraph quoted above rears its ugly head at least once each semster. There is a prof, Kiwi I think, who appears to have some pretty good insight into applying econometrics to ecosystems and vice versa. I do not attempt to keep up as they start talking about differentials and integrals and stuff and I reach a synaptic crisis. In other words, "Yeah, what he said." |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Botnst,I meant to post this below the last quote in my last post:
Ecolog-l ? Thanks, I'll check it out. I have an interest in Genetic Algorithms for optimising tricky problems - it is amazing how well they work (I am applying them to biodiversity patterns). You can watch them zeroing in on a solution that you would never have found by eye, or even conventional mathematical methods. I've often wondered what the economic similarities are. As you know, Nature is pretty brutal so I'm not sure it should be our standard! |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
jjl- why did you spoil such a great case of dislike I began to build for you? Now I simply feel guilty...
My point is, that there is no good way of deciding what is "too much money". It's completely subjective and it usually means more than amount of money associated with the individual making such judgement, regardles of THAT amount. Now make me dislike you again. it felt right...
__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law 1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car" 1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home) 1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!" |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Ya now, it ain't fair! NOW I have to agree with you... [sob].
Well, there is always Vronski...
__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law 1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car" 1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home) 1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!" |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|