Rippounet Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Aren’t you French? You have a witty remark about France being capitalist now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Rippounet said: You have a witty remark about France being capitalist now? As far as I’m aware France has a mixed economy, but maybe we need to go back and have the conversations about the definitions of socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Heartofice said: As far as I’m aware France has a mixed economy, It has. It's why I said "socialistic" country and not "socialist." But that's not the point at all! The point is that self-interest doesn't necessarily lead to individualism. It is in my self-interest for my country to have socialist programs. ; in fact, it's in the interest of about 80% of citizens. You know what's specific about human nature? The level of cooperation. According to evolutionary anthropologist Michael Tomasello humans are the only species that can truly set aside their individualism in order to work together toward a common goal. He thinks that's why we're the dominant species. Our ability to not be too individualistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said: I would want 100% tax for estates over a certain size. But i dont know much about tax implimentation , so im open to being educated on the subject. If you want me to tell you at what size we decide is a100% tax, i dont know. Then your answer is “no” you do not want a 100% inheritance tax for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Then your answer is “no” you do not want a 100% inheritance tax for all. Ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said: Ok? 100% inheritance tax for everyone leads to some bizarre laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: 100% inheritance tax for everyone leads to some bizarre laws. You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. That's a fucking lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. Are we talking a graduated level where anything over X level automatically escheats to the State? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 11, 2019 Author Share Posted July 11, 2019 37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. You want to tax it based on what society needs. Also enough to at least blunt the influence of money in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Are we talking a graduated level where anything over X level automatically escheats to the State? This is kind of the entire idea of the giving pledge right? But that pledge can't be enforced. So, yeah, if they don't follow through - or are just dicks like Bezos - then tax 'em. Should it be a hundred percent? I don't know, that seems a bit much. Maybe 95% after the first billion or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 48 minutes ago, DMC said: This is kind of the entire idea of the giving pledge right? But that pledge can't be enforced. So, yeah, if they don't follow through - or are just dicks like Bezos - then tax 'em. Should it be a hundred percent? I don't know, that seems a bit much. Maybe 95% after the first billion or something. That would leave only 50,000,000 for my KIDS!!! YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST HOW CAN THEY SURVIVE!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: That would leave only 50,000,000 for my KIDS!!! YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST HOW CAN THEY SURVIVE!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! Your kids are inherently doomed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, DMC said: This is kind of the entire idea of the giving pledge right? But that pledge can't be enforced. So, yeah, if they don't follow through - or are just dicks like Bezos - then tax 'em. Should it be a hundred percent? I don't know, that seems a bit much. Maybe 95% after the first billion or something.!! Or, maybe, after the first billions, spend several billion building housing for those with incomes 5 figures and below? O NOES! SOCIALISM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Typical. I only find this thread now, when it is over the 400 post limit... Anyway, I'd just like to agree with those who say it's a matter of definitions. Socialism generally is a giant grab-bag of ideologies - Social Democracy (which started out as building socialism via incremental change, and which has long since become being a Nicer Type of Liberalism), Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Anarchism and its sub-variants, Syndicalism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism (not the same as Marxism), Maoism (not the same as traditional Marxism-Leninism), Trotskyism, and god knows what else. Capitalism itself is hard to define, seeing as between the 1930s and the 1970s, the only people who used the term were the Communists - it was considered a dirty word in the West, and associated with the Great Depression. The preferred term was Free Enterprise (and, of course, the semi-planned Mixed Economy would be utterly alien to nineteenth century liberals). Oh, and as a bonus - there was nothing inherently socialistic about the Soviet planning model. Moscow borrowed the model from wartime Imperial Germany of all places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 Just now, Zorral said: Or, maybe, after the first billions, spend several billion building housing for those with incomes 5 figures and below? O NOES! SOCIALISM! Oh, but they already did. They are called prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said: Typical. I only find this thread now, when it is over the 400 post limit... Anyway, I'd just like to agree with those who say it's a matter of definitions. Socialism generally is a giant grab-bag of ideologies - Social Democracy (which started out as building socialism via incremental change, and which has long since become being a Nicer Type of Liberalism), Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Anarchism and its sub-variants, Syndicalism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism (not the same as Marxism), Maoism (not the same as traditional Marxism-Leninism), Trotskyism, and god knows what else. Capitalism itself is hard to define, seeing as between the 1930s and the 1970s, the only people who used the term were the Communists - it was considered a dirty word in the West, and associated with the Great Depression. The preferred term was Free Enterprise (and, of course, the semi-planned Mixed Economy would be utterly alien to nineteenth century liberals). Oh, and as a bonus - there was nothing inherently socialistic about the Soviet planning model. Moscow borrowed the model from wartime Imperial Germany of all places. Well, we are basically talking about the revenge of the Mensheviks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said: Oh, and as a bonus - there was nothing inherently socialistic about the Soviet planning model. I don't know about that. Lenin and Trotsky may have been straight up communist, but they tried to implement a socialistic type of model. Later Brezhnev and Gorbachev were pretty damn close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 21 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Oh, but they already did. They are called prisons. SNAP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 minute ago, DMC said: I don't know about that. Lenin and Trotsky may have been straight up communist, but they tried to implement a socialistic type of model. Later Brezhnev and Gorbachev were pretty damn close. Planning as we know it started with Stalin. Lenin realised state looting War Communism wasn't working, and implemented the NEP, while trying to encourage Western capitalist investment in the Soviet Union (yes, really). Stalin's planning was itself a response to the Scissors Crisis. The cherry on top is that Bolshevism assumed that a world revolution would allow Russia to catch up via fraternal assistance... but the world revolution never happened, forcing Moscow to develop on its own, in an environment where (not without reason) it thought itself ringed by enemies. It's basically a gigantic exercise in History screwing with the best-laid plans of Mice and Marx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.