News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Accidents and Obligations

Started by Ecurb Noselrub, September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

The Queen's death has raised the issue again of whether that monarchy, or any monarchy, has a place in the modern world. It is fairly simple to argue that an accident of birth should not give anyone the privileges of royalty. But how far are we willing to take that argument? It is an accident of birth that I was born a white male to a stable middle-class family in the United States. Without any question, I have privileges that others do not have. Had I been born a poor black female in Haiti or born a female into a Taliban household, clearly my life would have been a lot worse. My privilege is no more justified than the privilege of the Prince of Wales. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would not have accomplished what they did had they been born in worse circumstances.

We generally apply a stricter standard of judgment when critiquing people above our class than we do for ourselves. King Charles has pledged to continue his mother's commitment to serving his nation. Is that sufficient to justify the continuation of the House of Windsor? Not for me to decide, but what justifies my own continued privileged position (albeit not as privileged as royalty) when there are people all around me who are significantly worse off than I am?

We may not have as much to justify as the Windsors, but does the accidental inequality from which many of us benefit create an obligation to do more? If so, is some process of involuntary levelling called for? If not, how can we complain about royalty? Just food for thought. 

Icarus


billy rubin

look at economic disparity. it exists on a bell curve. i suggest getting rid of the very poor by getting rid of the very rich.

elon musk has 400 billion dollars. if i make $10,000 per day, 365 days out of the year, i can become as rich as elon musk in 109,000 years. does that make any sense?

leveling out the wealth of the top one percent will have more economic benefit for the poor than leveling out the remainder.


set the function, not the mechanism.

Asmodean

#3
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PMWe may not have as much to justify as the Windsors, but does the accidental inequality from which many of us benefit create an obligation to do more? If so, is some process of involuntary levelling called for? If not, how can we complain about royalty? Just food for thought. 
I think my position on this is pretty well-known, but I'll give it a go.

No, I would not say that inequality in itself creates any sort of obligation. A person may assume such obligation, and perhaps it is a hallmark of a good person that they would, however, if something is lawfully yours, whether you have inherited it, been given it or earned it through the application of effort, time and/or talent, then it is yours to do with as you please.

My usual disclaimer for those who would read too much Anarcho-Capitalism into it; no, taxation in itself is not theft. It's your lease for living in the society in which you live. How it's implemented may well be theft-like, however. For instance, taxing the money already taxed is difficult to describe in other terms than the "we" stealing shit from the "I."

In any case, back to answering the points;

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PMWithout any question, I have privileges that others do not have. Had I been born a poor black female in Haiti or born a female into a Taliban household, clearly my life would have been a lot worse. My privilege is no more justified than the privilege of the Prince of Wales. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would not have accomplished what they did had they been born in worse circumstances.
Why would you need to justify that privilege of yours? to me, it seems like it's something that just is.

That said, if Bill and Bezos were simply born to different families, and let us for the sake of it assume that they were born way better off than they were, financially speaking, they would likely have been two completely different people today - perhaps, neither would have achieved nearly as much as they have. Change the past - whichever way that may be - and you are likely to change the product of said past, in directions that are difficult to predict at best - "unknowable" at worst.

Quote...what justifies my own continued privileged position (albeit not as privileged as royalty) when there are people all around me who are significantly worse off than I am?
It's your life. Speaking only for myself, of course, but you owe me no justification - neither does Bezos, King Charles III or a homeless dude under the bridge.

Quote from: billy rubin on September 20, 2022, 11:26:52 AMlook at economic disparity. it exists on a bell curve. i suggest getting rid of the very poor by getting rid of the very rich.

elon musk has 400 billion dollars. if i make $10,000 per day, 365 days out of the year, i will become as rich as elon musk in 109,000 years. does that make any sense?

leveling out the wealth of the top one percent will have more economic benefit for the poor than leveling out the remainder.
...Where to start? Ok, here goes.

Quote from: billy rubin on September 20, 2022, 11:26:52 AMlook at economic disparity. it exists on a bell curve. i suggest getting rid of the very poor by getting rid of the very rich.
How would that get rid of the poor? By giving them the money? How will that prevent new poverty from occurring? How does it prevent old poverty from re-occurring? Remember, once you have effectively gotten rid of the very rich, their wallets are no longer there to pay the bills.

Quoteelon musk has 400 billion dollars. if i make $10,000 per day, 365 days out of the year, i will become as rich as elon musk in 109,000 years. does that make any sense?
He does not have anywhere near that much money. What he does have, is an ownership stake in some companies that offer their stock to the public. When those companies are hot, his stock is worth a lot. If he tried to sell it all, the value would crash in the process. Not if he did it slowly, I suppose, but my point is; it's not money that he has that much of - it's assets. To put it this way, if you own a house that has a market value of one million dollars and no loans or savings of any kind, then you are worth one million dollars. Do you have one million dollars? Do you even have ten thousand dollars with which to pay property tax on that million dollar house?

Quoteleveling out the wealth of the top one percent will have more economic benefit for the poor than leveling out the remainder.
Some would say that's debateable. I would go further and say that it is simply untrue. For starters, the assets are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. Who would you sell Tesla or Amazon to? Would they run it in such a way that it generated more wealth? Would any of that wealth even be under your nation's umbrella? And where will you be once you have used up the top 1%? Now that Musk and Bezos and all that lot are merely multi-millionaires, how do you propose to sustain the money flow needed for keeping the formerly-poor from becoming poor again? Planned economy, perhaps?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

my source was wrong. elon musk is currently worth $150 billion.

at $10,000 per day, it will only take me 41,000 years to be as rich as elon musk. 57,000 years to be as rich as jeff bezos was in 2020.

asmo, i think ive been clear that i am in favour of any economic system that prevents children from going hungry. i dont care what its called, or how its structured. our current system fails in that very fundamental task while allowing billionaires to play flash gordon in space.

how would you propose to feed children currently going hungry, if that is an issue?


set the function, not the mechanism.

Asmodean

I wouldn't.

That is, I can come up with a few suggestions, but I would not force you - or anyone - to feed someone else's kids.

Initially, I suggest a bond of incentive between the various industries and the education system. Even for low-skill jobs, a company would (or should) be happy to "test run" future employees. Then, incentives to hire full-time workers rather than part-time. My company does it under my supervision, in fact. The kids get a taste of doing business, learn some skills and take with them a weighty referral - or a job offer - if they apply themselves. I get to spread out the labour a little. It's excellent.

These suggestions alone are expensive to implement, however, it's an investment strategy, rather than some sort of public redistribution "charity."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

#6
you misunderstand me, asmo. im not advocating taking elon musk's bank account and scattering it out among the poor.

im suggesting a complete re-thinking of the social economy, one in which people prosper through their own efforts without their sustenance having to trickle down to them through the enlightened self interest of the rich. i advocate a system in which elon musks do not rise the top in the first place.

for example, i support the american railroad workers currently contemplating a strike. th eowners have specifically said that the workers do not contribute to the immense profits of the industry, that the profits are due to the fact of ownership,  and accrue to them by virtue of their ownership. i suggest that in fact, the profits of the industry are a direct result of the labour of the workers, and that they should receive benefits in accordance with that contribution.

the system that we have in america has failed the large body of the people. our standard of living has decreased significantly in my lifetime. the prospects of my children are poorer than were mine. our for-profit economy has destroyed much of the natural world in my country that i once took for granted. our for -profit prison system has made an industry of incarcerating citizens. representatives of my government routinely advocate destroying the educational system in order to ensure an ignorant and pliant electorate. our life expectancy is going down, our for-profit health care is expensive yet our health is poor, our impoverished are more impoverished than th eimpoverished of most other countries, and so on.

i would replace it with a system in which health, food, and shelter for the general populace are treated as fundamental rights, and ensuring those are the primary purpose of government. i would not use government as a force to redistribute the wealth of successful people, but i woud use it to prevent political and social power from becoming restricted to the wealthy to the detriment of the general population.

and i would reduce the annual taxes by half to anybody who made a motorcycle a major part of their daily transportstion, weather permitting. maybe more than half. the world needs more motorcycles.


set the function, not the mechanism.

Ecurb Noselrub

At least Asmo is consistent - he doesn't place any obligation on anyone as a result of their birth. Perhaps there is no moral obligation that arises from accidents of birth, but what about social policy?  To billie's point, if you simply had a fairer tax system so that those who profit the most paid a higher percentage of their income/wealth, then you would at least have the socially positive goal of giving those on the lower in more equal opportunity. If we are running a 100 meter race, but I am starting out on the 50 meter mark, it's not really fair. Higher taxes for the wealthy (as long as it is used to benefit in some way the underclasses) has the potential for achieving a more just society. That, I think, benefits everyone.  Or am I being idealistic?

billy rubin

nothing wrong with being idealistic. its how change comes about. but i dont see your system as any likelier to be enacted than mine.

we have an entrenched system in this country where money determines the goals and practices of politics. that has to change before anything else can happen.

regarding accidents of birth, its the way of the world and will never change. what i want is a system where being accidentally born poor doesnt load the dice towards you staying that way.


set the function, not the mechanism.

Dark Lightning

Quote from: billy rubin on September 21, 2022, 02:22:20 AMnothing wrong with being idealistic. its how change comes about. but i dont see your system as any likelier to be enacted than mine.

we have an entrenched system in this country where money determines the goals and practices of politics. that has to change before anything else can happen.

regarding accidents of birth, its the way of the world and will never change. what i want is a system where being accidentally born poor doesnt load the dice towards you staying that way.

I'm a white heterosexual male. I was born into a bit of poverty. Not sure how to describe it, other than experiencing too little to eat, having the electricity and gas turned off, that sort of thing. I was born in Minnesota but was moved to California when I was little (3). Eight children and uncles who couldn't seem to keep a job, and who were sleeping on a couch in the living room, sometimes with a wife and a couple of kids. ONE bathroom.  >:(  Good thing us guys could go and piss outside. I will not claim riches, but I worked for 45 years and retired at age 62, which I did not expect. My investment people claim that I have enough to live on until I die...whenever that is, but enough for the satisfaction of actuarial tables, which claim 92. Pretty sure that's not going to happen, I have a blood disorder that is 25% certain to turn into cancer. Well, hell, most of my relatives never made it past 58, so at 69 YO, I've made some progress.

Asmodean

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 20, 2022, 10:52:57 PMAt least Asmo is consistent - he doesn't place any obligation on anyone as a result of their birth. Perhaps there is no moral obligation that arises from accidents of birth, but what about social policy?  To billie's point, if you simply had a fairer tax system so that those who profit the most paid a higher percentage of their income/wealth, then you would at least have the socially positive goal of giving those on the lower in more equal opportunity. If we are running a 100 meter race, but I am starting out on the 50 meter mark, it's not really fair. Higher taxes for the wealthy (as long as it is used to benefit in some way the underclasses) has the potential for achieving a more just society. That, I think, benefits everyone.  Or am I being idealistic?

I have touched on the problem with many such "fairer" tax systems;

If you have a house worth a million dollars, does that mean you also have 10K for the property tax? Should you sell the house to pay it?

Now, imagine that the house is a business producing anchor chain. Let's say it's worth ten million dollars, eight of which are industrial machinery and buildings and most of the rest is product. What precisely should you as the owner, worth ten million dollars, be taxed for here? What should you pay that tax with?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

Quote from: Asmodean on September 21, 2022, 08:13:49 AMNow, imagine that the house is a business producing anchor chain. Let's say it's worth ten million dollars, eight of which are industrial machinery and buildings and most of the rest is product. What precisely should you as the owner, worth ten million dollars, be taxed for here? What should you pay that tax with?

as an owner, what, exactly, do you contribute to the business of producing anchor chain?

do you know how to mine the iron ore?

do you know how to cast the pigs?

to smith the links?

just what exactly is your role in producing anchor chain?

considering the business of producing anchor chain, what essential component of the process would stop forever if you suddenly fell over dead?


set the function, not the mechanism.

Asmodean

#12
Quote from: billy rubin on September 21, 2022, 09:28:49 PMas an owner, what, exactly, do you contribute to the business of producing anchor chain?
That depends a lot on what kind of owner you are. If you are someone like me, a minor(-ish) stock owner, what you get is the ability to vote on shareholder decisions, your votes being weighted by your shares (Usually one vote per share)

If you are a majority (or even just -major) shareholder, you pretty much are a member of the club that decides the company's course. Do we merge with them there? Do we expand into that there market? Do we buy that there competitor? Such like.

If you are the sole proprietor or are owner AND <insert C-title> then you likely also do strategic day-to-day stuff, like deciding on suppliers, figuring out where and how to actually sell whatever it is you make... The like.

Quotedo you know how to mine the iron ore?
Well, I actually do, for certain ways of getting at it. As a owner of a mine or a closely-related business - yes. You know how to mine the iron on the scale of your company. If you are good at the craft, that is. If your product is iron and you are making a profit and surviving setbacks, then I'd say you know enough. If your product is chain, the likelihood is that you buy the iron from whatever wholesales company you have gotten into bed with - probably your job as the owner as well, that. Getting into bed with major suppliers in mutually-profitable ways. What you know then is how to make anchor chain of desired price and quality and in desired quantity. additionally, you know how to get rid of it in exchange for coinage.

Quotejust what exactly is your role in producing anchor chain?
It includes, but is not limited to the above. There is a reason why I clock in some 40-45 work hours a week, while my CEO, who has a major ownership stake in the company, clocks closer to 50-60.

Quoteconsidering the business of producing anchor chain, what essential component of the process would stop forever if you suddenly fell over dead?
Everything. Unless contingency plans have been made, and most large or just well-run companies will have made them, it would all grind to a halt.* To put it into a beat-up metaphor, you will have fried the central processing unit in your computer.

Now, if you would answer my question, please?

An anchor chain company owned by you. It's worth 10 million USD. How should that wealth of yours be taxed, specifically, such that it is fair to the poor?

*EDIT: I suppose I should explain this.
Among the reasons companies have boards of directors is that the directors are all each other's deputies. If one is incapable of making a decision, the rest will. If all but one perish dramatically - that one will, until the new board is in place. Of course, there are intricacies to it as the directors may have different attributes that no-one else on the board has. However, they have the power to make decisions for the company - and usually hold a significant stake in it. sometimes not, however. So if we assume that the only owner with signatory power is one overweighed middle-aged dude with a penchant for eating raw cholesterol for every meal, and he suddenly and totally unexpectedly falls over dead over a plate of prime steak, the decision-making capability in that company will be crippled. There are ways out of such situations, however, it has happened and is often disastrous.

A other EDIT:
I think I can un-complicate this, actually, with the example of my own sweet self. My day job is salaried. I have my responsibilities in generating income for the company and all the usual stuff. So what is my company's owner (Another company is a majority shareholder - but I said un-complicate, so we let that one lie) responsible for? Well, they are responsible for me - and themselves, for that matter, still having our jobs tomorrow.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

#13
asmo, think about what youve written.  you describe a CEO whose job isnt making anchor chain, its pushing papers across a desk, holding meetings, and making telephone calls, and processing intangible tokens.

you discuss tasks such voting on your share of the capital, deciding who to merge with, choosing which competitor to buy . . .

your focus is on skills relating to  ownership, not on maneuvering a crucible of molten steel, or forging a red hot link under a stamping mill.

business ownership is the least important part of an anchor company. the owner is the individual most easily replaced. you acknowledge this yourself by emphasizing mergers and buyouts, which are just changes of owners. if the ownership is derived by buying stock, the owners dont need to know anything at all about anchors-- all they need is credit to buy into the system and harvest the profits of other people's work.

making decisions regarding the direction of a company through an economy that emphasizes and rewards ownership of tokens rather than productivity is a limited skill. it certainly is needed to perform in the current system. but does it demonstrate a skill set hundreds of millions of times more important than those of the mill worker actually forging the anchor chain? because thats how it is currently compensated.

i dont think so, personally.

regarding taxes, ive never used the word in this conversation until <<<here. its not part of any plan i have considered, so i dont have any viable solution that uses it.

see, im not interested in taking elon musk or jeff bezos hostage, taxing more of their hard-earned profits out of them, then coming back for more, like using them as a cash crop to harvest.

i want them to cease to exist.

whatever system takes what we have now and turns it into one in which more people do better with more health, shelter, and security is what i am in favour of, asmo. the system in my country is broken. i dont want to tweak it. i want to replace it.

sorry this post is so long. ill try to focus.


set the function, not the mechanism.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Asmodean on September 21, 2022, 08:13:49 AMWhat precisely should you as the owner, worth ten million dollars, be taxed for here? What should you pay that tax with?

I am more focused on the mega-wealthy, the billionaires. If someone is worth 100 billion, and their wealth increases by 5 percent year (a lot less than the increase they got during the pandemic), a 2-3% tax on their net worth each year should not be a problem. This, in addition to any applicable income tax. At 100 billion, that's 2-3 billion in wealth tax, and their net worth increased by 5. Net gain for them, benefit for the rest of society. Their income is a separate issue, but it would be 40% or so, so they still come out ahead. If they have income of 3 billion, they are taxed 1.2 billion in income tax. Net gain for them, benefit for society. Taxes on the wealthy should be earmarked for things like education, health care, poverty reduction, infrastructure, etc. Things that benefit society as a whole.