Wins Last Post

Status
Not open for further replies.
I messaged chatmaster so i'll just have to wait and see. May have to step away for a few days and hope that works if cm can't fix the problem. Let's change the subject and make it fun again for other people please.
 
Good Night Lol GIF by Evan M Cohen
Tired Good Night GIF by Holler Studios
 
Hope you don't mind but this is possibly the most intellectual conversation I've ever seen on here, so I'm brining it here from the Yes/No Game


emileh said:
That has to change and the quickest way I can think of dealing with this is to limit the inheritance of relatives to a set sum, liquidise the remainder and invest it in universal health care and good social welfare programs globally. Let the relatives run the businesses that remain and make sure they treat all employees fairly by paying a decent living wage.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it also encourage either (a) people being lazy and limiting their own potential to innovate/make money and at the same time creating a class of people that don't want to/won't try to achieve their potential and create wealth because there develops a dependency culture by inheriting money from people they're not related to* and/or (b) the people that have accumulated the wealth dispose of anything over the limited before they die by either giving it away or spending/wasting a lot of it to avoid it going to people they don't know?

*Thinking about the welfare system, there are a lot of people that choose to stay on State benefits rather than getting a job because their net disposable income would be about the same. There's an argument there that employers should pay more but then if they do the argument is that benefits payments should be increased broadly in line with the lowest earners.


emileh said:
Freedom of the individual is important and to a much lesser extent, freedom of markets.
Click to expand...
I struggle to reconcile freedom of the individual with saying that when they die they're going to only be able to pass on a set amount to their family and loved ones because the State is going to take the rest. Doesn't that limit their freedom?
 
Inkandtatts said:
Hope you don't mind but this is possibly the most intellectual conversation I've ever seen on here, so I'm brining it here from the Yes/No Game




Wouldn't it also encourage either (a) people being lazy and limiting their own potential to innovate/make money and at the same time creating a class of people that don't want to/won't try to achieve their potential and create wealth because there develops a dependency culture by inheriting money from people they're not related to* and/or (b) the people that have accumulated the wealth dispose of anything over the limited before they die by either giving it away or spending/wasting a lot of it to avoid it going to people they don't know?

*Thinking about the welfare system, there are a lot of people that choose to stay on State benefits rather than getting a job because their net disposable income would be about the same. There's an argument there that employers should pay more but then if they do the argument is that benefits payments should be increased broadly in line with the lowest earners.



I struggle to reconcile freedom of the individual with saying that when they die they're going to only be able to pass on a set amount to their family and loved ones because the State is going to take the rest. Doesn't that limit their freedom?
Click to expand...
I'm all for increasing benefits and providing wider scope for support rather than the rather nasty and vindictive system we have at present for those unable to work through disability for example.

We could fund that and a lot more besides (NHS for example) by closing all of the tax avoidance loopholes and making wealthy non-domiciled scumbags (owner of the Daily Mail for example) non-citizens and barring them from owning media companies that put forward biased viewpoints to support them and their equally vile and obscenely rich chums.

Limiting inheritance isn't limiting. The likes of the offspring of Bezos, Branson, and Musk, for example would still be comparatively wealthy and able to run the business that made them wealthy in the first place. When you're faced with the obscenity that the richest 10% hold 85% of global wealth then something has to be done. I suggest we limit the inheritance of relatives to a set sum, liquidise the remainder and invest it in universal health care and good social welfare programs globally. Let's reduce the obscene gap between the haves and the have nots.

So let the relatives run the businesses that remain and make sure they treat all employees fairly by paying a decent living wage.

Capitalism as a system needs to go. You can't have a system that's predicated on continuous growth when you live in a world with finite resources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top