Re: interesting OWS comment from an Occupier (Occupy Portland)

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:05 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpadREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:





On Oct 29, 10:38 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpadREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:28 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpadREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:02 pm, Google Beta User <wanyik...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 24, 12:15 pm, Huck Kennedy <tempeh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I hope people read up on their history.
100% death tax. Why is that such a terrifying proposition - if not for
the implicit desire to maintain some kind of generation to generation
inertia, in terms of class?
B/c of several factors - such as destruction of family businesses,
outright fraud, accounting tricks the rich will use to get around,
etc. Much less the whole idea of it - it's a punishment and does
nothing to help "disadvantaged".
The outright fraud/accounting tricks argument is a non-starter - the
same as arguing we shouldn't police murder because some clever @!#$s
will figure out how to get away with it.
Not at all. Who is best able to get around the "rules" - people like
you and me - or the Waltons? Furthermore, all that will end up
happening is that "rich" people will find ways to transfer ownership
and wealth prior to death - while poorer people will get their entire
legacy taken and their heirs left with nothing.
And Mafia types are more likely to get around the murder "rules".
Again, I don't think that's an argument against having anti-murder laws.

Quality strawman which fails to address the issue. If you want to
further tax the poor, that surprises me.


It's not at all a strawman, it's exactly analogous - you argue against my suggestion by pointing out that there are folks that are in better position to evade the rules than the average SOB. Which is an assumption you make, but, whatever.

The Mafia is in the same position with regards to murder. So what? There is never a case where pointing out that a system isn't going to be perfect means we shouldn't even try.

Rock.
@#$% family businesses. That's exactly the sort of
generation-to-generation class inertia I'd like to see disappear. If
Paris Hilton were born middle-class, I think she ends up meth whorin'.
She's a perfect example of someone who did *not* earn what they have in
life via hard work and ability - she does not exist in a "merit-based"
society.
What a silly example - Paris Hilton? That's not a family business -
I'm talking farmers and small business owners - and if you don't think
that the estate tax has a major impact, then you've cleared not taken
a hard look at the issue.
Um - Paris Hilton is rich because of a family business. I clearly never
said that I thought increasing the death tax wouldn't affect those
folks. I just don't care.

Her father is still alive and she'd still be rich regardless.


That would be relevant if it weren't her great-grand that built the empire. That's why she's such a @#$%ing great example to use - literally didn't do shit except being lucky enough to have Conrad as a great grandpapa.

Setting that aside, all I'm hearing as a counter is - you can't stop the transfer of wealth/status between generations because you just can't stop the transfer of wealth/status between generations. It's impossible to do.

So, before we go any further - set aside those practicalities. If it were possible, would you *support* stopping the transfer of wealth/status to one's descendants?

I suspect you simply don't support the entire idea, so why spend so much time focusing on perceived difficulties with implementation?


Furthermore, what are the heirs supposed to do if there's a 100% death
tax - sell the farm and sell the business? The grounds for abuse here
are ridiculous - and the incentive to cheat massive.
Sell what? 100% death tax - they don't get to sell shit.

Hunh? How does the estate get settled then? Please - tell me the
mechanics here. Are you saying the feds seize the property? Does
this include life insurance? What if you should die - do your wife
and kids get nothing from your estate?

Let's give it some time - schools need to reassess budgets - some
schools have hired, others have not.
But, overall, the student:teacher ratio *increased* for school year
2011-2012. And I'm sure you posted something arguing that we'd see the
opposite effect...

As I said - give it time. So many school districts were in the red to
begin with.

And reducing their budget is supposed to magically address the fact that they were already in the red?


That's old state policy actually - been there for a while as was put
in to keep the "rich" districts from having an unfair advantage over
poor.
I'm talking about the adjustments he made:

"Until this year, these caps have been allowed to rise each year by a
fixed amount ($200 per student during the current school year). The
governor's budget, however, would now prevent most school districts from
raising property taxes to make up for cuts in aid. His budget calls for
reducing revenue caps by 5.5 percent.

This is to keep school districts from having unlimited taxing power
AND to prevent richer districts from being able to spend more than
poor districts. Old legacy program - you are familiar with school
funding sharing, right?


And, again - I'm not addressing the old legacy program. I'm addressing the fact that Walker made a number of changes to that old legacy program specifically aimed at dramatically (further) reducing the amount districts could raise via local property taxes.

Like - so, I get that there is a sales tax - but if I were to say "why the heck did so and so raise sales tax", your response is - "sales tax has been around for a long time, dewd - legacy program".

I'm asking you, very specifically, why you think Walker and CO were motivated to make such big changes to that legacy program.

Cheers.


Again - to me, it reads as if he simply wants public schools to fail -
visibly, hopefully spectacularly.

Right. This is why his kids go to public schools.


You claim that libraries are a "leveler" - I say not really b/c
library patrons tend to reinforcing - it's not poor people who lack
knowledge who go to libraries - it's people who already like to read.
I love libraries - I go to them frequently - library access didn't
introduce jackshit to me.
Um, dewd - you're way off. Many library patrons, for instance, use that
as their only source of computer/internet access (something you'll hear
often in a library is a patron complaining about the fact that this is
the only way they can apply for jobs these days).

That's a fair point. So let's open up a bunch of internet shops
instead.

Nope - their role was employment absue and the prevention thereof. If
their role was leveling the playing field, you'd see far more ex-union
in management - but you don't.
Reducing employer abuse of their workforce is a great example of playing
field leveling. Forcing employers to provide things like family health
care - again, playing field leveling. Can't really believe you're
arguing this point.

B/c it's not helping people get ahead - it's not helping people move
beyond the assembly line and further their job skills and knowledge
base. Can't believe you're agruing this point. That has nothing to
do with advancement at all. That's stagnation with a bone thrown in.
How are you increasing skills by decreasing salary with higher health
beneifits?

Maybe it's simply a matter of difference of outlook - I look for
advancement - you're looking for something else.

Here's another example. I think widespread university attendance is a
good example of playing field leveling - although it's occurring to me
now that we obviously have very different ideas of what playing field
leveling even is - but, anyhow, who is always arguing that too many
folks are attending college these days?

Now this is advancement - and yes, getting advanced skills is a GREAT
idea. More kids ought to take advantage of jucos and the like. All
for furthering education. But why stop with college? And why aren't
the high schools doing a far better job in the first damn place?
Somewhere along the line, it becomes a matter of personal
responsibility too, ya know.

.

Relevant Pages