A thread on Equality of Opportunity

[GhostWriter16]

In Advance Warning: If you support either Money being doled out entirely equally, doled out Marxist style "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or by direct democracy, this thread may not make sense or apply to you completely. You can feel free to pop in, but take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. If you support the right for a person to have an equal opportunity, but to have the right to take that opportunity as far as you'd like to make as much as you can, regardless of your definition of "Equal opportunity" (There are several) I am looking for your imput especially to tell me what "Equal opportunity" really is, and how far your country and, specifically, America, is from achieving the goal of an equal opportunity.

Now, let's begin:

As far as I see it, equal opportunity means this, where you are born does not influence your chances of success, only your own attributes, whether they be skill at administration, skill at working hard, skill at investment, or heck even luck, will influence it.

Now as we all know, inheritances make a most interesting problem, with a lot of interesting solutions always offered, but of course, there's not a conclusive answer, as there are two arguments.

The Pro-Inheritance argument in the name of equal opportunity says that as you earned the money, you can give it to whoever you like, and that since you earned the money from scratch, anybody else can do the same thing and so shouldn't complain that you chose to give some of what you earned to your son.

The anti-inheritance argument in the name of equal opportunity says two things, one, that new companies don't have an accurate opportunity to beat the old ones, and that, since your dead, you don't have the inherent right to keep anything (I made this argument during an organ donors discussion, however with money, as your son is benefiting there is more of an argument.)

The second question is to the people in the anti-inheritance camp and that also support a leftist economy because "Capitalism is unfair, at least on its own" do you think, if a 100% inheritance tax was applied and distributed equally to give everyone just enough to start a business if they had the skill and desire, that opportunity would be equal? And, would you support capitalism under those conditions?

The third question is to those who favor inheritance. How far do inheritance rights go? For instance, if Bill Gates died today, I think, since he earned the money, he has a right to pass it to his son. However, what about his son, what if he dies in 20 years? Does he have an inherent right to pass down money to his son? I mean, he didn't earn the money, his dad did. Still, there is an argument that Bill would have wanted his grandson to have a good future. His great great great great great great great grandson 300 years from now? Probably not even in his head, nor does his great great grandson who never even knew why he was rich have the same right to pass down Bill's inheritance as Bill himself did. I wonder about solutions here.

The Fourth Question, and the most important one is "How do you define equal opportunity?" And, do you support equal opportunity? (And by that I mean only opportunity being equal, but therefore, there can be a variety of different results.)

Me? I think in general, the less regulations the better, however, I think we do need a few. For instance, anti-monopoly legislation is needed because, with at least two options, there won't ever be people paying $20 for a cheeseburger (Except if its a REALLY expensive cheeseburger or you live in NYC)

Second of all, I think there should be a certain extent of "You want money, earn it yourself" legislation to prevent the aristocracy of Feudal Europe, though how much I don't know.

Third of all, I think the government should focus on giving rising companies a shot, rather than giving Corporations a second opportunity through "Corporate welfare." Also, incentives for small businesses create jobs, while doing it for corporations just still lets jobs be cut, but keeps people who lost their opportunity rich.

That's it IMO.

 

[Gangor]

My personal preference would be to tax wealth rather than income. This would prevent dynastic wealth (unless the inheritors had the skill to make the wealth earn more). It would also encourage a more efficient use of resources. The only trouble is that unless the whole world does it rich people take their money elsewhere...

 

[Lone Wolf]

Third of all, I think the government should focus on giving rising companies a shot, rather than giving Corporations a second opportunity through "Corporate welfare."

That'd be socialism. Favouring large corporations is Capitalism as ordained by God, because it creates an additional incentive for rising companies to become successful large corporations itself.

 

[Gangor]

That'd be socialism. Favouring large corporations is Capitalism as ordained by God, because it creates an additional incentive for rising companies to become successful large corporations itself.

It's true Capitalism has had it's meaning somewhat bastardised. I prefer the term "Liberalism" in the classical sense rather than the American sense.

 

[Rhymes]

I don't understand... inheritence has nothing to do with left/right.

It's simple, when you die, you pay taxes as if you would have disposed of all your belongings in favor of your succession, calculating capital gain on the difference between cost and market value at the death date. Which is how it works right now.
I don't see any problem with that and most people agree on this in Canada be it right wing or left wing.

I assume that the same process goes in the USA but someone would need to confirm this.

 

[Ajidica]

In Advance Warning: If you support either Money being doled out entirely equally, doled out Marxist style "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or by direct democracy, this thread may not make sense or apply to you completely.

Money is non-existance in a communist society.

As far as I see it, equal opportunity means this, where you are born does not influence your chances of success, only your own attributes, whether they be skill at administration, skill at working hard, skill at investment, or heck even luck, will influence it.

According to the Bourgeoisie, the moral idea of the state is exclusivly this, that the unhindered excercise by himself of his own faculties should be granted to each individual.
If we were all equally strong, equally clever, equally educated, and equally rich, this might be regarded as a sufficient and moral idea.
But since we neither are nor can be thus equal, this idea is not satisfactory, and therefore nescesarily leads in its consequences to deep immorality, for it leads to this, that the stronger, the cleverer, and the richer fleece the workers and pick their pockets.
The moral idea of the state according to the working class on the contrary is this, that the unhindered and free activity of individual powers excercised by the individual is not sufficient, but that something must be added to this in a moraly ordered community - namely, solidarity of interests, community and reciprocity in development.

The Pro-Inheritance argument in the name of equal opportunity says that as you earned the money, you can give it to whoever you like, and that since you earned the money from scratch, anybody else can do the same thing and so shouldn't complain that you chose to give some of what you earned to your son.

But did the recipient earn the money?

The second question is to the people in the anti-inheritance camp and that also support a leftist economy because "Capitalism is unfair, at least on its own" do you think, if a 100% inheritance tax was applied and distributed equally to give everyone just enough to start a business if they had the skill and desire, that opportunity would be equal? And, would you support capitalism under those conditions?

I would not support it. It still does nothing to allieviate suffering created by lack of wealth. Furthermore, it does not stimulate additional businesses, which leads to a monopoly

The Fourth Question, and the most important one is "How do you define equal opportunity?" And, do you support equal opportunity? (And by that I mean only opportunity being equal, but therefore, there can be a variety of different results.)

Idealy, equal opportunity is everybody having completly equal skills and wealth and set loose in a completly undeveloped world. However, since that will never happen, equality of opportunity is giving everyone the tools to suceed, not ensure that they will.
For example, say there are two people who want to be carpenters. One by stroke of luck came across a hammer and began using it. The other has to make a hammer out of inferior materials. Now, the person who found the hammer is able to make superior goods due to his superior tools and forces the other person out of business. The wealthier one did not come to that position through superior skill or daring, but merely through sheer fate. Should the other one suffer simply due to fate? If they both found a hammer and one of them was shown to be inept at carpentry and his business failed, then I would have no objection to him becoming an employee of the other (provided he was treated fairly and not exploited.)

Second of all, I think there should be a certain extent of "You want money, earn it yourself" legislation to prevent the aristocracy of Feudal Europe, though how much I don't know.

Even if the primary transfer of money is upward and not downward?

Third of all, I think the government should focus on giving rising companies a shot, rather than giving Corporations a second opportunity through "Corporate welfare."

I nominaly agree with you here. However, based on what I have read, it appears that if the major banks went down then the global economic crisis would be alot worse.

Also, incentives for small businesses create jobs, while doing it for corporations just still lets jobs be cut, but keeps people who lost their opportunity rich.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the last part, but a slightly modified version of that is the key to social democracy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Money is non-existance in a communist society.

I'm aware, which makes the OP useless to communists

But did the recipient earn the money?

No. Are you then advocating a 100% inheritance tax?

I don't agree. I do support inheritance tax but I think, to a certain extent, you have the right to give your children a better life with money you've earned. I do not think the children have a right to it so much as I feel that the father has a right to pass it down. As such, for life or capital offenders, I think they should lose this right (Personally, I don't believe in life offenders because if you are going to give life without parole you might as well use capital punishment, but it won't happen and its a different debate.)

I would not support it. It still does nothing to allieviate suffering created by lack of wealth. Furthermore, it does not stimulate additional businesses, which leads to a monopoly

You support capitalism now don't you? At least, according to you, its social capitalism or some such right?

As for support for small businesses, I think its a good use for inheritance tax. Take a little from those who have passed on to give a chance for a new business to take them over.

Idealy, equal opportunity is everybody having completly equal skills and wealth and set loose in a completly undeveloped world. However, since that will never happen, equality of opportunity is giving everyone the tools to suceed, not ensure that they will.

You are confusing equal opportunity with equal result. Equal opportunity doesn't account for your skill, only your chances, not your result. Even without a welfare state, equal opportunity could be reached, even though some might start. Equal opportunity simply means you have the same chance to start out with. Now, I won't pretend we are quite there, but I would say everyone HAS an opportunity of some sort. Remember Howard Schultz.

For example, say there are two people who want to be carpenters. One by stroke of luck came across a hammer and began using it. The other has to make a hammer out of inferior materials. Now, the person who found the hammer is able to make superior goods due to his superior tools and forces the other person out of business. The wealthier one did not come to that position through superior skill or daring, but merely through sheer fate. Should the other one suffer simply due to fate?

Is it fair? Well, there are lots of variables. Did he just stumble across the hammer? Did he spend time looking for the hammer? Did he find it on property he bought?

Government can't handle that many variables. And besides, there was a chance the other guy could have found the hammer. So long as the first man was not cheating the rules, the second guy can still win by harder work or better skills.

If they both found a hammer and one of them was shown to be inept at carpentry and his business failed, then I would have no objection to him becoming an employee of the other (provided he was treated fairly and not exploited.)

Well, define "Exploitative." If your definition is logical, I agree.

Even if the primary transfer of money is upward and not downward?

Redistribution in America goes two places, to those who won't work or failed at their opportunity (The poor. Note, the latter doesn't mean you are lazy, but possibly just more skilled) and to failure corporations. Where they should be going is to things that will keep equal opportunity for everyone, no corporate bailouts, and a limited welfare state.

I nominaly agree with you here. However, based on what I have read, it appears that if the major banks went down then the global economic crisis would be alot worse.

They would just have to learn NOT to rely on the government

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the last part, but a slightly modified version of that is the key to social democracy.

No that's just capitalism Socialism is intended to make the result more equal. Social Democracy is a myth

Seriously though, social democracy is intended to equalize the result.

 

[JollyRoger]

A problem is that most of Bill Gates' wealth has not been taxed (thanks to tax deferrals of capital gains) and if there was no estate tax at all, it would essentially remain untaxed (thanks to stepped up basis in the deferred capital gains tax system).

Someone like Malcolm Forbes builds a tax-advantaged empire and then his ungrateful son tries to live as part of the tax free nobility (advocatoin 0 tax on estates, dividends, and capital gains). Steve Forbes' talent? Tarnishing the Forbes brand by allowing Obama is a Kenyan anticolonist tripe to make the cover.

 

[Ajidica]

No. Are you then advocating a 100% inheritance tax?

Ideally I would, but I can see the massive arguments against it (Dat Darn guvmint wants to tax mah death!) so I would simply tax it heavily. Give the dieing an incentive to invest it.

I don't agree. I do support inheritance tax but I think, to a certain extent, you have the right to give your children a better life with money you've earned. I do not think the children have a right to it so much as I feel that the father has a right to pass it down.

Isn't the contrary to the capitalist system? You aren't making yourself something, you are simply benefiting from the work of somebody else. The inheriter could be a literal idiot yet still live a comfortable life off the work of someone else.

You support capitalism now don't you? At least, according to you, its social capitalism or some such right?

Close enough. Social Democrat. Basicaly we want to reform the capitalist system to be less exploitive. We aren't yet ready for a true socialist state or communist society.

As for support for small businesses, I think its a good use for inheritance tax. Take a little from those who have passed on to give a chance for a new business to take them over.

Isn't that government interference in the economy and redistribution then?

You are confusing equal opportunity with equal result. Equal opportunity doesn't account for your skill, only your chances, not your result.

Which is what this is giving here. If both men find a hammer then they have equal opportunity. If one really sucks at making stuff and looses his job, then so be it. How is that equality if result.

Now, I won't pretend we are quite there, but I would say everyone HAS an opportunity of some sort.

Do you consider fate to be part of oportunity? If so, read the stanza in my sig.

Is it fair? Well, there are lots of variables. Did he just stumble across the hammer? Did he spend time looking for the hammer? Did he find it on property he bought?

Does it really matter? It isn't integral to the parable as I was trying to make it as simple as possible. For the sake of the argument, he was just walking along and found a hammer.

And besides, there was a chance the other guy could have found the hammer.

So people should be condemned to live a life where they are not doing what they believe they are good at, due to chance?

So long as the first man was not cheating the rules, the second guy can still win by harder work or better skills.

How much money is it to buy a simple metalworking setup? Now, assume there are two people, one born into wealth, the other not. THe one with the wealth is able to buy an excellent metalworking setup and begin selling his products.
The other man isn't wealthy at all, and has to work extra hard to purchase even a shoddy metalworking setup, and he discovers he is unable to make very good goods due to poor equipment. When he finaly gets a way to make the same start goods as the other person, that person has already achieved complete market domination and has released new, more advanced products.
Now, is it still equality of opportunity being born into wealth? Did you read the Lassalle quote?

Well, define "Exploitative." If your definition is logical, I agree.

We can leave that for another time, otherwise the thread will experiance derail. Without going into any specifics I would state 'Exploitive' as "being paid the aboslute lowest wages possible, to the point where he is being paid the barest living wage." or something along those lines.

Redistribution in America goes two places, to those who won't work or failed at their opportunity (The poor. Note, the latter doesn't mean you are lazy, but possibly just more skilled) and to failure corporations.

Failure corps are a recent exception. Furthermore, if they had collapsed, there goes to die in the gutter.

Seriously though, social democracy is intended to equalize the result.

I call BS on that statement. Show me one piece of socialist mainstream socialist or communist writings that promote equality of result.

I would like to point out my idea of 'equality of opportunity' does not actualy endorse equality of result. It may appear like that, but that is only due to evening the start line, allowing competitors a more equal challenge.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ideally I would, but I can see the massive arguments against it (Dat Darn guvmint wants to tax mah death!) so I would simply tax it heavily. Give the dieing an incentive to invest it.

Meh. I would prefer a 100% inheritance tax but just a 10% flat normal tax (That applies always mind you, no loopholes, I think the current loophole system is stupid) would be preferable to what we have ATM. I still don't support it though unless necessary, on the grounds that the money was earned somewhere through honest labor. It is the fairest type of tax though.

Isn't the contrary to the capitalist system? You aren't making yourself something, you are simply benefiting from the work of somebody else. The inheriter could be a literal idiot yet still live a comfortable life off the work of someone else.

Valid point. The idea of capitalism is to make yourself what you become. However, the person who passed it down made himself something, so arguably he has the right to pass it down. Hence I don't support a 100% inheritance tax. I support a decent one though, to be used to give small businesses a head start.

Close enough. Social Democrat. Basicaly we want to reform the capitalist system to be less exploitive. We aren't yet ready for a true socialist state or communist society.

So you eventually support one? Or not really?

Isn't that government interference in the economy and redistribution then?

We don't expect or support no influence, just very little. If someone is too poor to have a fair opportunity, I'm OK with the government taking from a dead man to give it to them.

Which is what this is giving here. If both men find a hammer then they have equal opportunity. If one really sucks at making stuff and looses his job, then so be it. How is that equality if result.

I agree but...

Do you consider fate to be part of oportunity? If so, read the stanza in my sig.

As long as it isn't inherently someone else's fault or an unexpectable disaster, yes. If a hurricane destroyed a community for instance, the government should help rebuild. If, however, you find 100 dollars laying on the street, good for you! The government shouldn't take it.

Does it really matter? It isn't integral to the parable as I was trying to make it as simple as possible. For the sake of the argument, he was just walking along and found a hammer.

Good for him! That's not hurting the other man's opportunity.

So people should be condemned to live a life where they are not doing what they believe they are good at, due to chance?

Its not just chance you know, skill plays in as well.

How much money is it to buy a simple metalworking setup? Now, assume there are two people, one born into wealth, the other not. THe one with the wealth is able to buy an excellent metalworking setup and begin selling his products.

This is sort of the debate, the fairness of inheritance taxes. Its not the whole debate, but its a valid part.

The other man isn't wealthy at all, and has to work extra hard to purchase even a shoddy metalworking setup, and he discovers he is unable to make very good goods due to poor equipment. When he finaly gets a way to make the same start goods as the other person, that person has already achieved complete market domination and has released new, more advanced products.

There is no such thing as complete market domination in a capitalist society. There are always at least two options.

Now, is it still equality of opportunity being born into wealth? Did you read the Lassalle quote?

Its arguable but remember Howard Schultz? Born dirt poor. Now he's got 1.1 billion of worth.

We can leave that for another time, otherwise the thread will experiance derail. Without going into any specifics I would state 'Exploitive' as "being paid the aboslute lowest wages possible, to the point where he is being paid the barest living wage." or something along those lines.

Well, it depends on his job, but in the real world, there are multiple jobs to choose from and so you will usually be paid close to your worth. If you can't, strike IS an option, and a legal one. If workers are being exploited as much as you think and its a known fact, the workers could just go on strike and so leave everyone poor till wages go up. They have options.

I would like to point out my idea of 'equality of opportunity' does not actualy endorse equality of result. It may appear like that, but that is only due to evening the start line, allowing competitors a more equal challenge.

I am aware of the difference. However, you also support a welfare state to support those who made less of their chances.

 

[Ajidica]

So you eventually support one? Or not really?

It really depends what I feel like that day. My personal opinions are farther to the left, more into democratic socialist or true socialist range, but considering that isn't going to happen any time soon, Social Democracy works.
As for the capitalist system, I still support a competative system, but a communal one. Basicaly it is shifting the power from the bourgeoisie to the workers. Competition becomes less oppressive that way.

Good for him! That's not hurting the other man's opportunity.

Sure it is hurting his opportunity. He has a harder place to work from due to inferior tools.

Its not just chance you know, skill plays in as well.

This was refering to the above parable. I'm trying to keep the variables to a minimum for the sake of the argument.

There is no such thing as complete market domination in a capitalist society. There are always at least two options.

Tell that to Standard Oil before Teddy Roosevelt had the red ink descend.

Its arguable but remember Howard Schultz? Born dirt poor. Now he's got 1.1 billion of worth.

I don't remember the name, but think: Of all the people born dirt poor, how many now are working in near-exploitive conditions and still living in poverty. A few people a generation making it exceptionaly rich means nothing to those who are still living in poverty.

Well, it depends on his job, but in the real world, there are multiple jobs to choose from and so you will usually be paid close to your worth. If you can't, strike IS an option, and a legal one. If workers are being exploited as much as you think and its a known fact, the workers could just go on strike and so leave everyone poor till wages go up. They have options.

I sort of have to go off on a tangent here, so bear with me.
Strikes are a primitive form of Marx's idea of class conciousness, or the understanding of proletariat exploitation through the means of production. Now, when the workers organize strikes, what do they generaly want? Choose one or all of the following: Better wages, shorter workdays, improved working conditions, and so on. Who opposes the striking workers? The company owner who sees that if the workers get their way, his profits will fall. So he tries everything in his power to keep the workers from achieving their demands.
Now, if the proletariat tries to redistribute the wealth through a democratic system, they are stymied by the bourgeoisie using political capital to create laws that are beneficial to them, not the proletariat.
EDIT: I'm not sure where I really wanted to go with this. I had a point but it got lost somewhere along the way. If I remember it I will post it.

I am aware of the difference. However, you also support a welfare state to support those who made less of their chances.

What if they had no chances to begin with?
I would like to clarify something. While the theoretical opportunities are always equal regardless of socio-economic status, the actual opportunities are highly dependant upon socio-economic status.

I'm still waiting, what is your opinion on the Lassalle quote?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Second of all, I think there should be a certain extent of "You want money, earn it yourself" legislation to prevent the aristocracy of Feudal Europe, though how much I don't know.

Maybe I missed something, but how do welfare programs encourage feudalism?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It really depends what I feel like that day. My personal opinions are farther to the left, more into democratic socialist or true socialist range, but considering that isn't going to happen any time soon, Social Democracy works.

Please enlighten me on the difference?

As for the capitalist system, I still support a competative system, but a communal one. Basicaly it is shifting the power from the bourgeoisie to the workers. Competition becomes less oppressive that way.

The "Bourgeoisie" are not by definition oppressive or evil. They can be, but its really not as easy as it looks. Are they all the time? No.

Sure it is hurting his opportunity. He has a harder place to work from due to inferior tools.

Well, that's the way life goes. Somebody got lucky, its part of life.

And seriously, if you want the government to regulate LUCK, wow. For one thing its impossible.

This was refering to the above parable. I'm trying to keep the variables to a minimum for the sake of the argument.

That's your problem as its unrealistic.

Tell that to Standard Oil before Teddy Roosevelt had the red ink descend.

I have no idea of life pre-Teddy but in Modern America, or even a society run by the Tea Party, this wouldn't happen.

I don't remember the name, but think: Of all the people born dirt poor, how many now are working in near-exploitive conditions and still living in poverty. A few people a generation making it exceptionaly rich means nothing to those who are still living in poverty.

Schultz is the owner of Starbucks and living proof that there is opportunity for all. Equal? Perhaps not. But there is an opportunity.

I sort of have to go off on a tangent here, so bear with me.
Strikes are a primitive form of Marx's idea of class conciousness, or the understanding of proletariat exploitation through the means of production. Now, when the workers organize strikes, what do they generaly want? Choose one or all of the following: Better wages, shorter workdays, improved working conditions, and so on. Who opposes the striking workers? The company owner who sees that if the workers get their way, his profits will fall. So he tries everything in his power to keep the workers from achieving their demands.

If enough people want it, they can get it without big government.

Now, if the proletariat tries to redistribute the wealth through a democratic system, they are stymied by the bourgeoisie using political capital to create laws that are beneficial to them, not the proletariat.

You mean like ONLY taxing them three times the rate that the middle class pays? Yeah that benefits them big time
EDIT: I'm not sure where I really wanted to go with this. I had a point but it got lost somewhere along the way. If I remember it I will post it.

What if they had no chances to begin with?

Unrealistic. That doesn't happen IIRC.

I would like to clarify something. While the theoretical opportunities are always equal regardless of socio-economic status, the actual opportunities are highly dependant upon socio-economic status.

They are dependent IMO, but not highly. Even if you start off dirt poor, you can work your way up. It may be harder or take longer, but it can be done. Also, the smarter people can get scholarships and so use them to get to a good college and a good job (Education till high school is free in the US, or at least, taxpayer funded. It gives an opportunity for all.)

I'm still waiting, what is your opinion on the Lassalle quote?

Which one?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Maybe I missed something, but how do welfare programs encourage feudalism?

I was discussing inheritance tax, though I wasn't necessarily supporting the view I posted, I was just posting all sides to encourage discussion.

 

[Ajidica]

Please enlighten me on the difference?

Democratic socialism is farther to the left than social democracy. Basicaly democratic socialism wants to create a socialist state through a democratic process rather than a revolution.

The "Bourgeoisie" are not by definition oppressive or evil. They can be, but its really not as easy as it looks. Are they all the time? No.

The bourgeoisie are defined based on controlling the means of production and capital.
The end result of capitalism is bourgeoisie exploitation of the proletariat.

Well, that's the way life goes. Somebody got lucky, its part of life.

So then why protest the holocaust? The jews just got really lucky. (I didn't want to break Godwins Law, but I needed a quick analogy.

And seriously, if you want the government to regulate LUCK, wow. For one thing its impossible.

Please refer to my updated parable about the metalworking setup.

That's your problem as its unrealistic.

Looks like we can't take any truths from Jesus's teachings as they were all overly simplistic parables.

I have no idea of life pre-Teddy but in Modern America, or even a society run by the Tea Party, this wouldn't happen.

How so? Without governmental regulations in a market economy, monopolies are always the result. Always. One company will do better and will profit. That I have no problem with. But then when they use their extra profit to force others out of business and either block or buy up all new inventions to prevent competition.

Schultz is the owner of Starbucks and living proof that there is opportunity for all. Equal? Perhaps not. But there is an opportunity.

Then we lack equality of opportunity.

If enough people want it, they can get it without big government.

Through what means if the state is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? An armed revolution? I would avoid that if any possible alternatives remained.

One can not sit for long on a throne of bayonetts.

You mean like ONLY taxing them three times the rate that the middle class pays? Yeah that benefits them big time

They also have three times the wealth. Furthermore, any modern society requires a well educated and healthy workforce. To do otherwise is to risk economic suicide. The majority of all bankruptcies in america come from medical related issues and in 2006 bankruptcies cost businesses around $40 billion. Tell me that is good for business.

They are dependent IMO, but not highly. Even if you start off dirt poor, you can work your way up. It may be harder or take longer, but it can be done.

So it is fine that some people get advantages due to circumstances beyond their control?

Also, the smarter people can get scholarships and so use them to get to a good college and a good job (Education till high school is free in the US, or at least, taxpayer funded. It gives an opportunity for all.)

Tell that to the kid who has to drop out of HS to help feed and cloth his family.

One cannot deny the differences in quality between public schools in poor urban areas and affluent suburbs. Why should the poor be given and inferior education than those in affluent areas? Sure there are exception, but on the whole schools in poor areas do worse on tests in almost all areas compared to schools in affluent areas.
That is just one example. Why should people be shafted with regards to available opportunity just because they happened to be born poor rather than rich? Why should personal or familial wealth be a deciding factor in anything, from education to health care?

Which one?[/QUOTE]

 

[GhostWriter16]

Democratic socialism is farther to the left than social democracy. Basicaly democratic socialism wants to create a socialist state through a democratic process rather than a revolution.

I understand the difference between those two. You said you weren't sure about the difference between socialism and democratic socialism, as you implied there is one.

The bourgeoisie are defined based on controlling the means of production and capital.
The end result of capitalism is bourgeoisie exploitation of the proletariat.

Umm... No.

They earned the capital through hard work somewhere down the line.

So then why protest the holocaust? The jews just got really lucky. (I didn't want to break Godwins Law, but I needed a quick analogy.

That was genocide, NOT bad luck.

Please refer to my updated parable about the metalworking setup.

I will later.

Looks like we can't take any truths from Jesus's teachings as they were all overly simplistic parables.

But they made sense. Your point was complex and so could not be made well via simple parable. Some points are like this, others aren't.

How so? Without governmental regulations in a market economy, monopolies are always the result. Always. One company will do better and will profit. That I have no problem with. But then when they use their extra profit to force others out of business and either block or buy up all new inventions to prevent competition.

That's why we need some rules. Just enough, not too many.

Then we lack equality of opportunity.

I admitted such. There will never be total equality most likely but the idea is to get close.

Through what means if the state is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? An armed revolution? I would avoid that if any possible alternatives remained.

If it was needed yes, but no capitalistic society would require one. I'd support overthrowing a Feudalistic society.

They also have three times the wealth. Furthermore, any modern society requires a well educated and healthy workforce. To do otherwise is to risk economic suicide. The majority of all bankruptcies in america come from medical related issues and in 2006 bankruptcies cost businesses around $40 billion. Tell me that is good for business.

Its not but what does this have to do with anything?

As for three times the wealth, well they earned it. But, I was talking percentage, not actual dollars. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Bill Gates (I'm assuming you AREN'T a multi-billionaire here) should pay more tax dollars then you, but the percent, IMO, should be flat.

So it is fine that some people get advantages due to circumstances beyond their control?

Fine? Or life? There is a difference and sometimes its life.

Tell that to the kid who has to drop out of HS to help feed and cloth his family.

Rare in the US.

One cannot deny the differences in quality between public schools in poor urban areas and affluent suburbs. Why should the poor be given and inferior education than those in affluent areas? Sure there are exception, but on the whole schools in poor areas do worse on tests in almost all areas compared to schools in affluent areas.
That is just one example. Why should people be shafted with regards to available opportunity just because they happened to be born poor rather than rich? Why should personal or familial wealth be a deciding factor in anything, from education to health care?

My translation: Cities are usually more liberal, hence liberal education is bad.



As for the quote, I don't really get the context.

 

[Ajidica]

I'll just quickly respond to the points.

Umm... No.

They earned the capital through hard work somewhere down the line.

Did they earn it, or did their ancestors?

That was genocide, NOT bad luck.

If one believes in fate, is genocide simply outrageous misfortune?

Fine? Or life? There is a difference and sometimes its life.

Huh?

Rare in the US.

Not really.

My translation: Cities are usually more liberal, hence liberal education is bad.

Are you endorsing iniquity?

As for the quote, I don't really get the context.

Ferdinand Lassalle. Socialist contemporary of MArx. I would link you to the text but I can't find the copy online.

 

[amadeus]

The estate tax is morally reprehensible; it puts burdens on those with "large" amounts of fixed assets but little liquidity (farmers, small business owners), it taxes income that has already been taxed once or twice in some cases, and the Warren Buffetts (who supports the estate tax) won't be paying it because they've set up trusts for their kids.

(Bill Gates' children will "only" be getting $10,000,000, Gates says. How egalitarian.)

 

[LightFang]

I believe in forcing everyone to become equal. This will be done through handicaps, maintained by the U.S. Handicapper General. I nominate Diana Moon-Glampers. She knows how to wield a double-barreled shotgun.

 

[JollyRoger]

The estate tax is morally reprehensible; it puts burdens on those with "large" amounts of fixed assets but little liquidity (farmers, small business owners), it taxes income that has already been taxed once or twice in some cases, and the Warren Buffetts (who supports the estate tax) won't be paying it because they've set up trusts for their kids.

Critics of the estate tax have not pointed to a single family farm that has been lost to the estate tax. Those with fixed assets can properly plan around the estate tax via life insurance. Sucks to be their heirs if they didn't. The fixed assets, if really valuable enough to have the estate tax kick in can be used as collateral in a loan to pay estate taxes.

People like Bill Gates have acquired tremendous amounts of wealth that hasn't been taxed yet (his Microsoft shares for example). So you are talking single taxation once you get past the multi-million dollar exemptions you can get via estate planning.

Trusts do not generally avoid estate taxation at the Warren Buffet level of wealth. Proper trusts can perhaps double or triple the current exemption amounts, but we are not even talking about sheltering 10 million from taxation.