The Coming Collapse

Horse

Can someone chose to whom they are born, can they chose to be born into advantage rather than disadvantage?

If someone is born into disadvantage with all the problems that brings- how is that their life choice?

Inequality might mean shit to you but as pointed out is has been behind many a revolution.

 

Horse

You - I have the right to defend myself should it be necessary( yes I am pro gun.)

Me - But wouldn’t it be better if you didn’t feel so frightened?

And the reality is that you are so frightened of the society you live in that you feel you need a gun to protect you.

A healthy society is one in which a person feels safe but you are clearly frightened which is one sign of an unhealthy society.

In the context of collapsing societies been an unhealthy one is not a good sign.

 

Horse

You - A man or woman should work for his or her livin'. Earn that life you want by the sweat of your brow & the blood in your veins

Me - Ok so you believe in a 100% inheritance tax. Even so those brought up in advantage are still going to be advantaged over those who are not.

Now you again –

You seem to be saying people should earn what they have then you contradict that by saying they don’t have to earn what they have?

Most inheritance in the US is not land that you till yourself, its assets some people might have farmland in their portfolio but they will most likely never see it let alone tilled it LOL.

The thing is that inheritance is not earned and it can mean not having to work at all or give someone the advantage of choosing the type of work they do and how much they choose to work.

If history is anything to go by it is the disadvantaged that have worked the hardest the most and for the least.

If as you say people should earn what they have is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

To me a very unequal society is not going to be a healthy one.

 

To me to ward off a ‘collapse’ you need to look at your society and see if it is healthy or unwell, and if it is ailing then its best to deal with the causes of the maladies, because if you do nothing the society will become increasingly corrupt, to the point where some type of ‘collapse’ is inevitable.

I don’t think the US has got to that point but I think it needs some type of treatment soon.

 

How is it going to get 'treatment'?
You saw all the 'progress' Obama was able to make.

Now we have Trump using obsolete, brutal tactics like trade wars and trickle down to fix problems that don't exist, aggravating the problems that do exist, and also creating new ones. His environmental policies alone have pretty much ruined the future of America... and the young people didn't even vote for him.

 

Well that is the thing – Americans still do have the ability to vote, it’s been corrupted by gerrymandering and voter suppression, but it is still there and possibly the first thing that the voters should demand is the doing away with of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

 

True, but gerrymandering is not a sexy topic and Americans have the attention span of a three year old. This makes progress difficult.

 

Every asset left in an inheritance has already been taxed before it became an inheritance.

The moment it becomes an inheritance, it has no different value than the previous moment it wasn't one.

Why should providing that gift to your heirs cause your heirs to have to pay taxes on something that was already taxed once?

If that inheritance is an income producing entity, they will pay the same taxes that were previously collected in an ongoing basis.

The deceased worked hard to acquire and pay taxes due their whole lives. In what they simply wanted to leave as a gift to their heirs. Now it gets double taxed just to provide additional income to the government that has done nothing to add to its value in any way.

An inheritance is earned by whomever the deceased. decided has earned it. It isn't anyone else's decision to make but the ones leaving it behind. Often those heirs spent years caring for their parents in many different forms. Because the government did not. That inheritance might be what can make them whole again after the passing of the parents they cared for often for years and at great expense.

I am opposed to inheritance taxation.

 

Not

There is a right leaning Social Darwinist viewpoint that a person’s position in society was earned naturally by that individual that people earn by their own merits the life they get.

The augment is often expanded to say that if these earnings were achieved purely by personal abilities and merit and without the aid of others or society then society should not expect them to pay taxes to help out the disadvantaged who are only so because they lacked merit and ability.

I’m just trying to point out that the greatest impact on an individuals ability to achieve their potential is down to been born into advantage or disadvantage. This can have an impact on not just having more economic freedom but also about education and social connections that advantage can bestow, this is also part of the advantaged inheritance.

If this inheritance in upbringing and that passed on is taken into account then the Social Darwinist viewpoint falls apart, inequality is in large part not down to merit but unnatural social constructs, which means that inequality can be tackled though other social constructs like publically funded education and welfare paid for through progressive taxation, and yes through inheritance tax.

 

The choice comes when they decide how to respond to that disadvantage. If they sit there dressed in sackcloth rubbin' ash upon themselves & bemoanin' the hand life has dealt them then they allow that upbringin' to rule them. If they instead get up, dust themselves off, & keep movin' forward they can overcome that disadvantage. Certainly it requires hard work & a strong constitution but it can be done, at least here in America.

No I feel I need a gun because it is a tool. The capacity to kill a man is only one of it's many uses. If I need use it for that then I will but only should the circumstance arise.

Taxin' someone does not equal them earnin' that which they were taxed for. Hard work to attain or maintain a lifestyle is how a person earns that lifestyle.

In conclusion it is when folks try to skirt that hard work, to deny their personal responsibility, to blame others for their problems that society collapses. Nothin' can function without the proper amount of due diligence & respect bein' shown.

 

Horse

But since disadvantage is mostly a social construct the individual cannot be blamed for being born into it. No person can chose to be born into advantage or disadvantage, so is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

The thing is that a lot of social care and welfare goes to people who are working in fact the idea that the majority of those in disadvantage are lazy scrounger that don’t wish to work is a myth promoted by those on the right.

Another myth is the so called ‘American Dream’ many studies have pointed out that for large portions of Americans Social Mobility has stalled or even gone backwards.

To me these things are canaries in the coalmine when it come to the health of US society.

 

Horse

Hand guns were invented to kill and maim people or to threaten to kill and main people and that has been their main use and the impetus to improve them ever since (hunting came a long time later) and after that I’m not sure how many uses a gun has.

Thing is that you fear circumstance to such an extent you feel you need a gun for protection rather than feeling safe without one, and as said that is not a healthy sign for a society.

 

Horse

But through inheritance people can be given an advantage that means they don’t have to earn or work hard to attain and or maintain a lifestyle or are given a great boost in achieving it. So that argument falls apart.

This sounds a lot like that old right wing con game of the deserving and undeserving poor – here is something I post some years ago -

The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

Many on the right seem to have this viewpoint but they word it in terms of ‘personal responsibility’ they seem to say - if people are responsible and make “better decisions” then they will not need assistance but those that are irresponsible and make “poor decisions” don’t deserve assistance.

The problem is that an individual cannot always be in personal control of circumstance, at the very fundamental level right wing view of personal responsibility falls down – No one can choose to whom they are born and that is one of, if not the biggest thing to impact a person’s life.

I’m sure if people could choose they’d want to be born into wealth or at least comfort rather than abject poverty. For one it would likely lead to a happier and healthier live but the opportunities to fulfil your potential would be far greater.

In an unequal system there cannot be equality of opportunity the more unequal a society the more difficult it can be for the disadvantaged to fulfil their potential and rise in social standing (what is referred to a Social Mobility).

For a lot of people they are in the position they are because of lack of opportunity rather than lack of potential.

Also as well as giving greater opportunities advantage can also allow greater levels of irresponsibility or the making of bad decisions, advantage can cushion individuals and institutions from the effects.

*

The thing is that the right wing con that is the deserving and undeserving poor theory increases the likelihood of a growing inequality in society which as has been said is not a healthy sign for any society.

 

Zen

I agree but to me the state of taxation and the present incumbent of the White House are just some symptoms [of many] of what is ails America a lot of the cause of which go back to an inequality in social and economic power within the US.

Neo-liberalism the ideology that has dominated in the US for the last 30 years or so is all about causing division, in basic terms it places people in two groups, winners and losers, the winners should be lorded and their interested catered for (tax cuts) and the losers should be despised and are told that any hardship they are facing is due to them just not putting in enough effort (and cutting public assitence is a way of forceing then to make more effeort).

The populist National Neo-liberalism that has now arisen appeals to some groups over others in the same divisive way it seems to say that any hardship one groups is facing is because other groups are getting an easier time (because of left wing politicians) and it comes down to scapegoating and a blame game so job losses are down to immigrants, affirmative action and foreigners screwing Americans over trade.

The point is that the ideas and philosophies of the right are divisive what’s needed are ideas that bring people together to think in terms of community over self-interest, the long term good over short term gain and close the inequality gap.

 

More from the incredibly depressing Chris Hedges:

Becoming Serfs

 

Just because a respectable & worthwhile concept can & has been corrupted to suit the whims of the powerful doesn't mean that the fault lies with the concept itself.

 

If, by "the concept", you mean inheritance, I think you're right. One of the things that keeps me going is the need to provide for my wife and kids, and that applies to when I'm dead and gone. When my kids are grown, it will be the grandchildren. For most folks, it's a struggle to provide a decent life for the family these days, so I want to give all the help I can. Whether or not this is rooted in "human nature",some genetic module inherited from our primal ancestors, or something I picked up from my culture I can't tell you, but for me it's a powerful drive. However, I see no need to provide my kids with millions of dollars, several houses, and annual cruises to Fantasy Island (not that I'd ever be in a position to do that except in my wildest dreams, but some people can). So I think it's reasonable to put a lid on it. The 2018 federal estate and gift tax limit is an $11.8 million windfall for a married couple, $5.6 million for an individual. That strikes me as more than a tad too generous, particularly when it comes at the expense of the federal deficit. Somebody's kids are going to have to pay that bill and do without a lot of benefits we take for granted.

 

Horse

Yep I think the same about communism LOL

But seriously – the thing is that I’m not against reasonable inheritance - what I’m pointing out is you and others on the right seem that they are - because it always seems to be them that say things like ‘A man or woman should work for his or her livin'. Earn that life you want by the sweat of your brow & the blood in your veins’

That every person should have to work for what they want and that nothing should be just handed to them.

What of course many on the right mean by this is that the disadvantaged should not be given the ‘unearned’ benefits of public assistance, healthcare or other welfare ‘handouts’.

But isn’t inheritance just another form of unearned handout?

So is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

Some on the right say that I shouldn’t get ‘free healthcare’ from the NHS but I’ve been paying into the national insurance taxation scheme all my life so actually I’ve paid for it. Others on the right say I shouldn’t get unemployment benefits if I become unemployed but again I’ve been paying into that through taxation all my working life as well.

Now I might take more and I might take less than I put in but that is the nature of a community chest

Fact is that much of the ‘public assistance’ that people get have been paid for by contributions to that chest by those very people, if anything the child that inherits millions from a parent has probably contributed little to that chest of gold.

But again what is meant by many on the right when they argue against ‘unearned handouts’ is that the advantaged don’t want to pay the ‘high’ taxes that go into the chest that pay for the assistance going to what they see as the undeserving disadvantaged.

 

My attention turns to polities that have collapsed already, or are in the process of collapsing.
Greece, Argentina, Venezuela. Also Detroit, Puerto Rico. The City of Stockton, CA.