A lesson on why socialism never works

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

---

Really an amazing one. Thank you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilkenter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

---

Really an amazing one. Thank you...

---

Glad you liked it.

You'll probably be the only one.

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

---

I was going to say that lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

---

"Made up"?

Explain.

Have you some sort of exclusive knowledge of human nature.

I have an idea - why don't you send me, oh, let's say, a thousand dollars, and I'll send you a nice thank-you note in return.

How's about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

---

I was going to say that lol

---

But you decided to lol instead.

Life is pretty simple for you, eh?

Eat, sleep, lol.

Repeat.

Better hope you never lose your cookies, 'cuz you could never find your way back here, I'll bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

---

Does it matter if its made up or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

---

I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

I was going to say that lol

---

But you decided to lol instead.

Life is pretty simple for you, eh?

Eat, sleep, lol.

Repeat.

Better hope you never lose your cookies, 'cuz you could never find your way back here, I'll bet.

---

I was goping to say that and that you are an idiot, that's all.
Yes life for me is very simple, you sound like my ex wife.
I wonder if you have any other life than to come to FST and make a fool out of yourself with your ideas from the middle ages, but then again, I could care less, you remind me of bozzo the clown, just for the stupid stuff you write.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

---

I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:

---

To paraphrase an old song, 'People Are Children Wherever You Go'.

They're no more or less childish anywhere on the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

But you decided to lol instead.

Life is pretty simple for you, eh?

Eat, sleep, lol.

Repeat.

Better hope you never lose your cookies, 'cuz you could never find your way back here, I'll bet.

---

I was goping to say that and that you are an idiot, that's all.
Yes life for me is very simple, you sound like my ex wife.
I wonder if you have any other life than to come to FST and make a fool out of yourself with your ideas from the middle ages, but then again, I could care less, you remind me of bozzo the clown, just for the stupid stuff you write.

---

Each post a many-faceted jewel of.......well......hmmmm......oh, nevermind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

---

Does this mean that you agree with putting students with the same ability in the same class? I don't think any social system can afford that.

Just wondering.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

---

Does it matter if its made up or not?

---

Surely you jest.

Until more specific info can be provided, this "economics professor from Texas Tech" and his anecdote about socialism is about as valid as WMDs in Iraq and giant albino alligators in the sewers.

The applicable description would be truthiness.

Since Texas is still trying (somewhat successfully) to insert creationism into their science programs, your gullibility can be understood- if not excused- Skiz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?

---

Does it matter if its made up or not?

---

Probably not for the kind of people that use TV shows like 24 as proof that torture is justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Does it matter if its made up or not?

---

Probably not for the kind of people that use TV shows like 24 as proof that torture is justified.

---

Lets raise the bets, not just torture but anything can be justified. I am not saying things like rape are good or bad, all i am saying anything can be justified. BTW what is wrong with 24 anyway? One can quote a movie but not a tv series? weird

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilkenter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Probably not for the kind of people that use TV shows like 24 as proof that torture is justified.

---

Lets raise the bets, not just torture but anything can be justified. I am not saying things like rape are good or bad, all i am saying anything can be justified. BTW what is wrong with 24 anyway? One can quote a movie but not a tv series? weird

---

There's nothing wrong with the show 24 if that's the kind of show you enjoy.

You do however realize that it's fiction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

---

I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:

---

Texans, lulz.

A few of the posters in this thread need to take a course on political economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilkenter

Lets raise the bets, not just torture but anything can be justified. I am not saying things like rape are good or bad, all i am saying anything can be justified. BTW what is wrong with 24 anyway? One can quote a movie but not a tv series? weird

---

There's nothing wrong with the show 24 if that's the kind of show you enjoy.

You do however realize that it's fiction?

---

I do realize it is fiction, but you cant possibly say that it is all fiction. Movies sometimes reflect real events why not tv series? So someone justifying torture via events of 24 may actually refer to a real event. Just because we dont know the event itself is real or not doesnt make it fiction.

Socialism is the plague of the 21st century.

My country is in a puddle of dog excrement because of it's socialist system.

Your example does perfectly elucidate what happens under Socialism Skee.

I'll cite an example from my own homeland.

A very small amount of people actually work hard here. Private initiative is less than 40% of the active labor-force. More than 50% suck off the public teat, which means that the State has no means of income other than taxation.

They thus tax highly on the small amount of people who are actually working, of their own devices. Something Socialism cannot accept is that some people are better at certain types of work than others, which is simply the nature of life. We are not all the same!

Instead of incentivating those who excel, Socialism squashes them. They get treated no better than those who are inferior at that particular craft. This is unfair. Ultimately, Socialism makes for a suffocating atmosphere where everyone is "in limbo".

Taxes are high, but salaries are low. However this is relative. Those working for the state (who have no boss, a job until they die from which they short of cannot be fired, do as they please, and still get payed for extra hours and the like) complain and go on regular strikes, because they also want an escalating salary that'll go up every year.

Their complaints ultimately result in the prices going up. Tickets for public transport go up, the price of most such services is at an all-time high, as a response to their jabberings, so that they'll earn more. Yet salaries remain low.

What people don't understand is the only way they can get higher salaries is if there is more private initiative. The economy is dead. Almost everything is indirectly state-owned, and the labor laws are so ridiculous nobody can even conceive of launching a business proper. You simply are not allowed to fire your employees. Which means they can do as they please, be lazy and faff about, because they're immune.

Socialism is not even a utopia. It is just incorrect and unfeasible. All that anti-Capitalist (the system where "wolves attack each other and only the strongest survive") talk is fine and dandy, but there is no alternative.

Without healthy competition there can be no economic evolution. Man needs an incentive to work harder, or work at all for that matter. It's as simple as that. We are not some superior being that will only function ideally in a situation where the riches are distributed equally amongst everyone and nobody is richer and yet no-one is poorer. That is simply unrealistic.

The incentive of capital works. The ability to fire your employees is a good thing. Not only does it make them work harder (so as not to be fired) but it also means you are able to put into action a growing enterprise.

"Oh but if the company is raking in profit then it shouldn't be allowed to perform setbacks" Why not? A company can fire whenever it needs or decides to. Otherwise it always has a barrier to a possible development or progression. If you went to the trouble of building a company out of your own sweat, why shouldn't you be allowed to run it the best you can?

Even if the ethics of working and progression for an ever-increasing capital sound or feel corrupted, they are ultimately for the public good. At least for an economic good. Socialism is no different. Corrupted State officials rake in copious amounts of dough on the side and still live off better than the rest. This is no news.

In a Socialist regime you don't know for who you are working the land you're working. It doesn't belong to you, but you don't know who it belongs to. The "state"?

Marx and Engels spoke of the alienation of the worker under Capitalism.

I say the worker has no impetus to work under Socialism. I've seen good people get into the system and get corrupted by it. Why should they try? Why work harder? If your pay will be the same? Why be good or nice and not accept bribes? If the system is built in such a way that the vandals get the spoils and those who are honest get shat on?

Another particularly annoying aspect of Socialism here is pensions. Old people complain that they don't get enough a month for sitting on their couches crunching crisps or playing domino in the public gardens.

I say they should have saved up money throughout their life (trimming a bit off every month until their eventual retirement) so they'd be able to live off it later. If it isn't enough, then the odd job helps.

What doesn't help is having young people work hard to pay incredibly high taxes which also get subdivided into the pensions these old people get (I say old but young people get the dole as well, many to spend on heroine or other drugs and perpetuate their unemployment but we won't get into that chapter).

Why should you pay for someone else's pension? It's not like they payed you for anything.

When I worked I had to trim off a considerable amount of my salary for entities I knew nothing about. "Social security" has never done anything for me. And yet I had to pay for it even if I didn't want to. The rest went to the high taxes.

And yet the only countries not in recesion at the moment appear to be "Socialist"..

Extreme Socialism can't work, as your made up example shows...but neither can Capitalism if taken to extreme, as the very real slump caused by the Finance system also shows. Theres a finite amount of money in circulation and it accumulates at the top.

Human Nature = there will be greedy/lazy bastards that will spoil it for everyone else in either system.

[quote=The Flying Cow;3176734]Another particularly annoying aspect of Socialism here is pensions. Old people complain that they don't get enough a month for sitting on their couches crunching crisps or playing domino in the public gardens.

I say they should have saved up money throughout their life (trimming a bit off every month until their eventual retirement) so they'd be able to live off it later. If it isn't enough, then the odd job helps.

What doesn't help is having young people work hard to pay incredibly high taxes which also get subdivided into the pensions these old people get (I say old but young people get the dole as well, many to spend on heroine or other drugs and perpetuate their unemployment but we won't get into that chapter).

Why should you pay for someone else's pension? It's not like they payed you for anything.

[quote]

Am I to assume that you paid for all of your education out off your own pocket? Are you that rich you can pay for all your Health and education costs? If so where did all this money come from?

I worked for 50 years paying taxes, part of which paid for your education, that was a waste of taxes.

He also paid National Insurance, which was supposed to be towards his pension.

It's not his fault the various Governments just added the NI contributions into the general taxation pot and didn't invest them as the Private Sector has to.

UK National Insurance.. is this the biggest Pyramid Scheme in the world? And a Manditory one a that:angry:

yeah buying stuff on credit and then taking out a loan on your house is really that great, in fact its that great that it lead us direclty into the financial crisis..
btw to say a class of american students equals a populatuion of a country is just not defensible, oh great wonder young students rather go party than learn for school i am soooo suprised right now!

Are you retarded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilkenter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

There's nothing wrong with the show 24 if that's the kind of show you enjoy.

You do however realize that it's fiction?

---

I do realize it is fiction, but you cant possibly say that it is all fiction. Movies sometimes reflect real events why not tv series? So someone justifying torture via events of 24 may actually refer to a real event. Just because we dont know the event itself is real or not doesnt make it fiction.

---

Perhaps.

But 24 is not one of those shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMiKRON

yeah buying stuff on credit and then taking out a loan on your house is really that great, in fact its that great that it lead us direclty into the financial crisis..
btw to say a class of american students equals a populatuion of a country is just not defensible, oh great wonder young students rather go party than learn for school i am soooo suprised right now!

---

And you want to live where?

A Cave maybe?

If you rent, guess what.. at some point the Landlord probably bought the house. Or someone else built it as an investment (much the same as buying one)

Now paying more than a house is worth.. I'd agree with you.

The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.

---

ok.. where i want to live.. in a country where people buy stuff they can afford would be a good start.
and you give a good example why capitalism istn that great either:
over-valued houses create money that just doenst exist through credits, and when the house is sold because you cant pay the credit you wont even come close to the credits value because you lied about its worth before when you wanted to get as much money as possible...
and this process is made everywhere, and when no lie can be told they just make a law and a patent and its out come is a stupid copyright law for example..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:

---

Texans, lulz.

---

For the record, that was as much directed at the alleged professor as the theoretical students.

It has the ring of a thought experiment, turned chain email (as has been pointed out). And one perpetrated by someone not entirely clear over what socialism is.

If anything, grades and whatnot are allowable rewards within the system, afaik.

What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.

Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.

This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMiKRON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.

---

ok.. where i want to live.. in a country where people buy stuff they can afford would be a good start.
and you give a good example why capitalism istn that great either:
over-valued houses create money that just doenst exist through credits, and when the house is sold because you cant pay the credit you wont even come close to the credits value because you lied about its worth before when you wanted to get as much money as possible...
and this process is made everywhere, and when no lie can be told they just make a law and a patent and its out come is a stupid copyright law for example..

---

This is Crap, and I'm no fan of Capitalism as most people here will testify.

Property is worth what people are willing to pay, full stop.

Its the BUYERS that push the prices up. Capitalism is usually from the SELLER or PRODUCER downwards.

The "Price" of property that is advertised in Estate Agents is the price that people are paying for similar property in that location at the moment, with a few small additions/subtractions for the amount of work/modernisation required etc.

A very few "Estate Agents", the ones that are not also surveyors (Chartered Surveyors are regulated in the UK, Estate Agents aren't), will try and add on a couple percentage points to that figure (They do work off commision afterall, and no profession can put their hand on their heart and say everyone involved is honest)

Buyers then offer more than that price to ensure they get the property, hence the next ones will show a higher "Price". If people used their common sense and offered less, or the figure shown, the market wouldn't get overvalued.



Edit: Exception; there are times when land is worth more than the "Market" would show. Usually due to necessary infrastructure works that affect everything else. Thats one of the reasons for Compulsary Purchase Orders, so that the Taxpayer doesn't get ripped off by the people that own the property.

None of the extremism in compensation, or concentration of wealth, is a true reflection of true capitalism, nor any conservative precept I am aware of.

A true conservative capitalism aims for the type of practical integrity generally cited as lacking in today's financial scandals...it allows social and societal condemnation to accrue well and truly to those who trespass against a public propriety, rather than some expedient sought by greedy lawyers, intrusive courts, and a legislature drunk on the wine of non- and anti-constitutional heresy.

This country has never experienced this most equitable of systems - if you have a complaint about American capitalism, talk to the democrats and the republicans.

By the way, when I say 'conservative capitalism', I assert the Reagan Era never got there, either.

On a related note, why the animus toward those who inherit money?

Feel free to denigrate any number of them for slothful living, waste, what-have-you...I would like someone to make a case for confiscation of such wealth via tax or any other method.

If it's yours, it's yours, and if it's theirs, it's theirs; the poor have no claim to the wealth of the rich; relative wealth is not a zero-sum game - if you want what someone else has, get it for yourself, don't tax/steal theirs.

Ah, inheritance...

I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)

I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)

However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.

Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Ah, inheritance...

I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)

I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)

However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.

Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.

---

"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?

Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?

Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?

To whom do these decisions fall?

Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?

The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?

You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?

The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?

If not, explain this, please.

Also:

Please define "excessive"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

If it's yours, it's yours, and if it's theirs, it's theirs; the poor have no claim to the wealth of the rich; relative wealth is not a zero-sum game - if you want what someone else has, get it for yourself, don't tax/steal theirs.

---

I can agree with you with one major caveat.
Eliminate all the tax shelters/loopholes that are available to only the wealthy.

For too long the wealthy have leveraged their power to protect (and extend) their wealth, ultimately paying far less percentage-wise than the middle and lower classes.

The US tax code is a minefield that can only be successfully gamed by those with the means to hire expertise...expertise not available to the poor or even moderately well-to-do.

A close-to-home example of such "gaming" would be my brother, a successful small business owner.
During the Bush administration a stimulus tax bill was passed that was meant to incentivize purchase of new equipment.
Their tax attorney clued them in to the fact that due to the poor wording of the law, a Mercedes G-wagon- a $90,000 luxury SUV- qualified as a "heavy truck" and buying one would actually net them a tax rebate.

So they did.

I don't begrudge them the ability to own such an egregious vehicle, I do object to them getting a tax break for doing so.

I concur completely and wholeheartedly.

Now, do I have your vote.

What are you running for?

I am running for my life.

A simple Tea party can lead to unintended, um.......eventualities.

Politics looms, and is writ large(r than usual).

I endeavor to resist, as ever.

By the paragraph, then:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.

---

It shouldn't be?

It isn't?

It "happens" all over the place, all the time, here in the U.S.

Our media makes sure you hear naught about it, though, preferring to present the errants as if they are the norm, which they most definitely are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.

---

How do communism and socialism "do away with that kind of thing"?

How do communism and socialism "state" everyone should have "equal means to live", i.e., if my neighbor has a Volvo S80, and I have the S40, My government can be expected to address this iniquity, and forthwith, too.

Social classes and such are "eliminated"?

Do communism and socialism "eliminate" personal judgement as well?

You're talking about a, well...you couldn't call it a society, rightly - after all, you're talking about cloning, but by means of legislature and judiciary, rather than scientific means.

Kinda scary-sounding, if you ask me...I mean, gee whiz, Snee, you and I aren't equal - may be more appropriate to say we are not...congruent.

Nor, I think, would you want us to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.

---

You speak as if there were a pile of something, designated "WEALTH", upon which a small group of people have set up shop for the express purpose of poking others off it.

One more time:

Wealth is not finite.

Wealth is not zero-sum proposition.

One can make a pile of one's own to sit on, as can one's neighbors and relatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Ah, inheritance...

I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)

I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)

However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.

Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.

---

"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?

Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?

Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?

To whom do these decisions fall?

Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?

The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?

You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?

The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?

If not, explain this, please.

Also:

Please define "excessive"?

---

That's not what I said.

I don't believe most of the Rich have earned their money, agreed. I even gave examples of poorly paid people that I believe are worth more than them.

I didn't say those that have earned it should be more favourably taxed. A Tax system should be open and transparent; above all it should be simple.

If not, then you get the situation we have today whereby the Rich and Corporations take advantage of loopholes to avoid the Tax they should be paying. This increases the burden on everyone else.

There are examples of people in this country earning very substantial sums and paying less Tax than those on very modest incomes. Any system that allows this is morally bankrupt, as are the people that do it.

I also declared that the threshold where one should pay any Tax from an Inheritance should be much higher than it is at present. I do not believe that you should not be able to look after your family after you've gone.

However, as I've said, there is a limit.

At the moment I'd put that at 7 figures: Say everything over £1,000,000 should be taxed as income to those individuals that inherited.

You will notice that those that have substantially above this would still be able to reduce the Tax burdon by spreading the money around his familly.

I also do not believe that people should be forced to sell their Homes (as an example) to pay Tax. I have no problem with this Tax being deferred if it is tied up in assets, or indeed that the Government becomes a temporary non-voting shareholder if there is a Company involved, until that debt is paid.