poor black kids who do everything right do worse than rich white kids who do everything wrong

[Not2BSubjugated]

Exactly...just because rich kids are born with wealth does not preclude other from acquiring it. Wealth is not finite.

A Seed Doesn't Grow in a Sandbox

It is a Negative Sum. Placing inferior people in unearned positions makes it dwindle away.

I think you might be contradicting what you just said regarding the class ladder and the heiristocracy (nice turn of phrase, I like that one).

If the heirs are the ones that set all the rules to financial success, why does the setup still allow for heirs to fail and their dynasties to crumble beneath them when they're not competent?

Seems like the rules favor not only those who inherit advantages from their predecessors (which, by the way, is the same in literally any economic system you might hope to erect), but also those who are competent (also the same in any system).

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

I don't agree that there should be no billionaires, and although the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die. I don't share your obvious authoritarian streak, and I tend to celebrate great success, not decry it.

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

"an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege.

And now come the oligarchs - the most wealthy and powerful families of America - lobbying Congress that they should retain their stupefying levels of wealth and the power it brings, generation after generation. They say that democracy doesn't require a strong middle class, and that Jefferson was wrong when he said that "overgrown wealth" could be "dangerous to the State." They say that a permanent, hereditary, aristocratically rich ruling class is actually a good thing for the stability of society.

While a $1.5 million trigger for the estate tax is arguably too low - particularly given the recent bubble in real estate prices - that doesn't invalidate the concept of a democracy defending itself against oligarchy. Set the trigger at 10 million, or fifty million. Make sure that family farms and small businesses are protected. And make sure that people who have worked hard and earned a lot of money can have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will live very comfortably.

But let's also make sure that we don't end up like so many Latin American countries, where a handful of super-rich families rule their nations, and democracy is more show than substance.

The Founders of our republic fought a war against an aristocratic, oligarchic nation, and were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into aristocracy, oligarchy, or feudalism/fascism. We must hold to their vision of an egalitarian, democratic republic.

Now the Estate Tax is before the Senate. Encourage your US Senator to fight against mega-millionaire and US Senate leader Bill Frist, and to keep the estate tax intact.

If the primary reason that you believe that nobody should be allowed to become a billionaire is that Thomas Jefferson said that people who have enough money to challenge the influence of the state, allow me to put your heart at ease. Last I checked, the nation as a whole cranks out about 15 trillion dollars annually. The federal budget as of like, 2014, was a trillion and a half. Yearly.

People whose net worth is in the tens of billions do not have the wealth necessary to challenge the influence of an entity that spends a hundred and fifty times that in any given year.

Virtually every billionaire in the USA whose name isn't Donald Trump came out publicly in favor of Hillary, and we all know how that went. Seriously, these people are quite powerful, but they don't have the absolute authority that you're implying here. Not by a long shot.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

I'm not okay with a rigged system.

The difference between your thought process on this and mine isNOT that I don't mind oppression. It's simply that I don't fault our system for the fact that people born to wealthy, powerful, or otherwise influential parents are going to have major advantages in life. Nepotism isn't native to the US or to capitalism, it's a basic human tendency that you find in literally any nation and any socioeconomic system. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that humans have such a strong tendency to show preference to familial and tribal members over non family and non members that I'm convinced it's biologically hard-wired into us.

I'm also not unwilling to take measures to fix injustices that occur in our society. The difference here is that you and I disagree about what constitutes an injustice, and we also frequently disagree on how much of which discrepancies have just occurred naturally and how much of which discrepancies are motivated by favoritism. We also disagree on how to go about solving those problems, and even which of those problems we could reasonably expect to solve by way of government force.

Just because I don't agree with your assessment of what's wrong doesn't mean I don't care about black people. Stop with that moral high-ground grandstanding bullshit. Believing the good beliefs and thinking the good thoughts doesn't make you a better man than those who believe and think otherwise, and implying that it does only serves to shut down these conversations before they can go anywhere.

 

[BlackSand]

If the primary reason that you believe that nobody should be allowed to become a billionaire is that Thomas Jefferson said that people who have enough money to challenge the influence of the state, allow me to put your heart at ease. Last I checked, the nation as a whole cranks out about 15 trillion dollars annually. The federal budget as of like, 2014, was a trillion and a half. Yearly.

People whose net worth is in the tens of billions do not have the wealth necessary to challenge the influence of an entity that spends a hundred and fifty times that in any given year.

Virtually every billionaire in the USA whose name isn't Donald Trump came out publicly in favor of Hillary, and we all know how that went. Seriously, these people are quite powerful, but they don't have the absolute authority that you're implying here. Not by a long shot.

As a country ... We owe more than all of us combined can pay ...

.

 

[sealybobo]

A Seed Doesn't Grow in a Sandbox

It is a Negative Sum. Placing inferior people in unearned positions makes it dwindle away.

I think you might be contradicting what you just said regarding the class ladder and the heiristocracy (nice turn of phrase, I like that one).

If the heirs are the ones that set all the rules to financial success, why does the setup still allow for heirs to fail and their dynasties to crumble beneath them when they're not competent?

Seems like the rules favor not only those who inherit advantages from their predecessors (which, by the way, is the same in literally any economic system you might hope to erect), but also those who are competent (also the same in any system).

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

I don't agree that there should be no billionaires, and although the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die. I don't share your obvious authoritarian streak, and I tend to celebrate great success, not decry it.

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

"an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege.

And now come the oligarchs - the most wealthy and powerful families of America - lobbying Congress that they should retain their stupefying levels of wealth and the power it brings, generation after generation. They say that democracy doesn't require a strong middle class, and that Jefferson was wrong when he said that "overgrown wealth" could be "dangerous to the State." They say that a permanent, hereditary, aristocratically rich ruling class is actually a good thing for the stability of society.

While a $1.5 million trigger for the estate tax is arguably too low - particularly given the recent bubble in real estate prices - that doesn't invalidate the concept of a democracy defending itself against oligarchy. Set the trigger at 10 million, or fifty million. Make sure that family farms and small businesses are protected. And make sure that people who have worked hard and earned a lot of money can have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will live very comfortably.

But let's also make sure that we don't end up like so many Latin American countries, where a handful of super-rich families rule their nations, and democracy is more show than substance.

The Founders of our republic fought a war against an aristocratic, oligarchic nation, and were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into aristocracy, oligarchy, or feudalism/fascism. We must hold to their vision of an egalitarian, democratic republic.

Now the Estate Tax is before the Senate. Encourage your US Senator to fight against mega-millionaire and US Senate leader Bill Frist, and to keep the estate tax intact.

If the primary reason that you believe that nobody should be allowed to become a billionaire is that Thomas Jefferson said that people who have enough money to challenge the influence of the state, allow me to put your heart at ease. Last I checked, the nation as a whole cranks out about 15 trillion dollars annually. The federal budget as of like, 2014, was a trillion and a half. Yearly.

People whose net worth is in the tens of billions do not have the wealth necessary to challenge the influence of an entity that spends a hundred and fifty times that in any given year.

Virtually every billionaire in the USA whose name isn't Donald Trump came out publicly in favor of Hillary, and we all know how that went. Seriously, these people are quite powerful, but they don't have the absolute authority that you're implying here. Not by a long shot.

I don’t buy that every billionaire came out for hillary. But I know what you mean. The voters decided not the billionaires. So I get your point.

But to prove my point did you know trump is the first time every major newspaper didn’t endorse the republican? But interestingly they didn’t endorse hillary either.

I know money needs to be taken out of politics but really why bother? Is that going to educate the electorate?

 

[MikeK]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

C'est la vie.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Exactly...just because rich kids are born with wealth does not preclude other from acquiring it. Wealth is not finite.

A Seed Doesn't Grow in a Sandbox

It is a Negative Sum. Placing inferior people in unearned positions makes it dwindle away.

I think you might be contradicting what you just said regarding the class ladder and the heiristocracy (nice turn of phrase, I like that one).

If the heirs are the ones that set all the rules to financial success, why does the setup still allow for heirs to fail and their dynasties to crumble beneath them when they're not competent?

Seems like the rules favor not only those who inherit advantages from their predecessors (which, by the way, is the same in literally any economic system you might hope to erect), but also those who are competent (also the same in any system).

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die.

The Nobility With No Ability

On whose authority does the HeirDad have the power to tell us we have to accept his destructive privilege of setting up his sons ahead of others with more ability? It is a fallacy to not allow the excluded and cheated to question the status quo, preaching that it has primacy and anything else is aggression.

Granting hereditary privileges is no better than bribery. Does the fact that the briber uses "his own money" justify his action? Are the investigators wrong for telling him what he can and can't do with his own money? Besides, it is dishonest to focus on the decedent, calling it a "Death Tax," when it is the undeserving HeirHead who would be taxed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

Leftist Equivalences Prove They're Unconscious Agents of the Right Wing They Were Born In

Even though the Limousine Liberals have instructed you to use this spin, don't associate the feral minorities with the White lower classes. To be logical instead of conformist, discrimination has to be qualified into unjustifiable and justifiable. It is not an automatically pejorative term, except in the dictionary of mind control.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

C'est la vie.

Egorger Vos Fils

C'est la guillotine

 

[sealybobo]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

Leftist Equivalences Prove They're Unconscious Agents of the Right Wing They Were Born In

Even though the Limousine Liberals have instructed you to use this spin, don't associate the feral minorities with the White lower classes. To be logical instead of conformist, discrimination has to be qualified into unjustifiable and justifiable. It is not an automatically pejorative term, except in the dictionary of mind control.

Explain

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

.


Just because I don't agree with your assessment of what's wrong doesn't mean I don't care about black people. Stop with that moral high-ground grandstanding bullshit. implying that it does only serves to shut down these conversations before they can go anywhere.

Black Lives Don't Matter, Never Have, and Never Will

This discussion has nothing to do with Black people. OPs have no authority to slant things into irrelevance and force us to debate on those givens.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

Leftist Equivalences Prove They're Unconscious Agents of the Right Wing They Were Born In

Even though the Limousine Liberals have instructed you to use this spin, don't associate the feral minorities with the White lower classes. To be logical instead of conformist, discrimination has to be qualified into unjustifiable and justifiable. It is not an automatically pejorative term, except in the dictionary of mind control.

Explain

Until "Postjudice" Becomes a Word, the Word "Prejudice" Is Meaningless

Your mind would explode if confronted by having to distinguish terms into good and bad. You are programmed to think racism, prejudice, and discrimination are always wrong.

What's even more impossible for you to handle is the fact that "prejudice" is usually a dishonest term. To be factual, it has to mean "judging before (pre-) adequate evidence," but most of what is called "prejudice" are opinions reached after adequate experience with the general behavior of the group being judged.

 

[sealybobo]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

Leftist Equivalences Prove They're Unconscious Agents of the Right Wing They Were Born In

Even though the Limousine Liberals have instructed you to use this spin, don't associate the feral minorities with the White lower classes. To be logical instead of conformist, discrimination has to be qualified into unjustifiable and justifiable. It is not an automatically pejorative term, except in the dictionary of mind control.

Explain

Until "Postjudice" Becomes a Word, the Word "Prejudice" Is Meaningless

Your mind would explode if confronted by having to distinguish terms into good and bad. You are programmed to think racism, prejudice, and discrimination are always wrong.

What's even more impossible for you to handle is the fact that "prejudice" is usually a dishonest term. To be factual, it has to mean "judging before (pre-) adequate evidence," but most of what is called "prejudice" are opinions reached after adequate experience with the general behavior of the group being judged.

All I can think about are all the business’ who only hire friends and family. That’s code for no darkies. That’s white privilege

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Exactly...just because rich kids are born with wealth does not preclude other from acquiring it. Wealth is not finite.

A Seed Doesn't Grow in a Sandbox

It is a Negative Sum. Placing inferior people in unearned positions makes it dwindle away.

I think you might be contradicting what you just said regarding the class ladder and the heiristocracy (nice turn of phrase, I like that one).

If the heirs are the ones that set all the rules to financial success, why does the setup still allow for heirs to fail and their dynasties to crumble beneath them when they're not competent?

Seems like the rules favor not only those who inherit advantages from their predecessors (which, by the way, is the same in literally any economic system you might hope to erect), but also those who are competent (also the same in any system).

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die.

The Nobility With No Ability

On whose authority does the HeirDad have the power to tell us we have to accept his destructive privilege of setting up his sons ahead of others with more ability? It is a fallacy to not allow the excluded and cheated to question the status quo, preaching that it has primacy and anything else is aggression.

Granting hereditary privileges is no better than bribery. Does the fact that the briber uses "his own money" justify his action? Are the investigators wrong for telling him what he can and can't do with his own money? Besides, it is dishonest to focus on the decedent, calling it a "Death Tax," when it is the undeserving HeirHead who would be taxed.

On who's authority? ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS THE OWNER OF HIS OWN SHIT!

How about, on who's authority do you decide what someone else does with wealth that you had no hand in creating?

Granting heredity privileges, whether you like it or not, whether or not wealth is involved, is inevitable. Regardless of how you try to eliminate unfair advantages by oppressing the free will of those around you, the fact of the matter is that those same natural advantages in basic competence and capacity that give a select, tiny few people that extra edge that turns Herculean effort into actual social dominance will still be largely hereditary. You're not God. Stop trying to correct the nature of reality and maybe try focusing on how we can benefit everyone WITHOUT actively oppressing the achievers.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

. . . and some people are born taller than others, and some people are born better looking than others, and some people are born smarter than others.

Why are you ok with a rigged system that isn't fair to you or black people?

Here is an example of how unfair our society is

Manhattan DA reportedly dropped felony fraud case against Trump's kids after donation from Trump's lawyer

If you did what Ivanka did, you'd be in jail. The DA would have charged you because your lawyer didn't donate to his re election campaign.

So if we know the system is rigged to benefit rich people, how come you have a hard time seeing that the system is rigged to hurt poor people and/or black people?

To me it's obvious. You may not care about black people or poor people but that doesn't change the fact that the system is rigged.

We can all agree the system is rigged to benefit the rich but you aren't willing to fix that either. So don't deny the system is rigged when we all know it is. Just explain to us why you don't care to fix it. Is it because you are rich? You don't feel like it hurts you so you're ok with it?

.


Just because I don't agree with your assessment of what's wrong doesn't mean I don't care about black people. Stop with that moral high-ground grandstanding bullshit. implying that it does only serves to shut down these conversations before they can go anywhere.

Black Lives Don't Matter, Never Have, and Never Will

This discussion has nothing to do with Black people. OPs have no authority to slant things into irrelevance and force us to debate on those givens.

Yeah, no, not really down with the racial collectivism, thanks.

 

[MikeK]

On who's authority? ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS THE OWNER OF HIS OWN SHIT!

How about, on who's authority do you decide what someone else does with wealth that you had no hand in creating?

Granting heredity privileges, whether you like it or not, whether or not wealth is involved, is inevitable. Regardless of how you try to eliminate unfair advantages by oppressing the free will of those around you, the fact of the matter is that those same natural advantages in basic competence and capacity that give a select, tiny few people that extra edge that turns Herculean effort into actual social dominance will still be largely hereditary. You're not God. Stop trying to correct the nature of reality and maybe try focusing on how we can benefit everyone WITHOUT actively oppressing the achievers.

How do you feel about imposing a $20million limit on accumulation of personal assets?

 

[sealybobo]

A Seed Doesn't Grow in a Sandbox

It is a Negative Sum. Placing inferior people in unearned positions makes it dwindle away.

I think you might be contradicting what you just said regarding the class ladder and the heiristocracy (nice turn of phrase, I like that one).

If the heirs are the ones that set all the rules to financial success, why does the setup still allow for heirs to fail and their dynasties to crumble beneath them when they're not competent?

Seems like the rules favor not only those who inherit advantages from their predecessors (which, by the way, is the same in literally any economic system you might hope to erect), but also those who are competent (also the same in any system).

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die.

The Nobility With No Ability

On whose authority does the HeirDad have the power to tell us we have to accept his destructive privilege of setting up his sons ahead of others with more ability? It is a fallacy to not allow the excluded and cheated to question the status quo, preaching that it has primacy and anything else is aggression.

Granting hereditary privileges is no better than bribery. Does the fact that the briber uses "his own money" justify his action? Are the investigators wrong for telling him what he can and can't do with his own money? Besides, it is dishonest to focus on the decedent, calling it a "Death Tax," when it is the undeserving HeirHead who would be taxed.

On who's authority? ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS THE OWNER OF HIS OWN SHIT!

How about, on who's authority do you decide what someone else does with wealth that you had no hand in creating?

Granting heredity privileges, whether you like it or not, whether or not wealth is involved, is inevitable. Regardless of how you try to eliminate unfair advantages by oppressing the free will of those around you, the fact of the matter is that those same natural advantages in basic competence and capacity that give a select, tiny few people that extra edge that turns Herculean effort into actual social dominance will still be largely hereditary. You're not God. Stop trying to correct the nature of reality and maybe try focusing on how we can benefit everyone WITHOUT actively oppressing the achievers.

A long time ago our government made a deal with corporate America. Have the forests, oil fields, oceans, farmland, build your factories, pollute. But you got to pay taxes. Especially when they benefit from the roads we build and they tear up with their trucks. The military that defends them so they can sell their shit all around the world.

Need I go on? There’s a social contract that corporations have with American workers too. Fair wages.

Anyways, since the 1970s the social contract has been slowly methodology broken. The gap between rich and poor has widened

It’s not the rich or corporations fault. It’s voters. Or it’s people who don’t vote. Bad citizens

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

On who's authority? ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS THE OWNER OF HIS OWN SHIT!

How about, on who's authority do you decide what someone else does with wealth that you had no hand in creating?

Granting heredity privileges, whether you like it or not, whether or not wealth is involved, is inevitable. Regardless of how you try to eliminate unfair advantages by oppressing the free will of those around you, the fact of the matter is that those same natural advantages in basic competence and capacity that give a select, tiny few people that extra edge that turns Herculean effort into actual social dominance will still be largely hereditary. You're not God. Stop trying to correct the nature of reality and maybe try focusing on how we can benefit everyone WITHOUT actively oppressing the achievers.

How do you feel about imposing a $20million limit on accumulation of personal assets?

I am absolutely opposed to that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I think you might be contradicting what you just said regarding the class ladder and the heiristocracy (nice turn of phrase, I like that one).

If the heirs are the ones that set all the rules to financial success, why does the setup still allow for heirs to fail and their dynasties to crumble beneath them when they're not competent?

Seems like the rules favor not only those who inherit advantages from their predecessors (which, by the way, is the same in literally any economic system you might hope to erect), but also those who are competent (also the same in any system).

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die.

The Nobility With No Ability

On whose authority does the HeirDad have the power to tell us we have to accept his destructive privilege of setting up his sons ahead of others with more ability? It is a fallacy to not allow the excluded and cheated to question the status quo, preaching that it has primacy and anything else is aggression.

Granting hereditary privileges is no better than bribery. Does the fact that the briber uses "his own money" justify his action? Are the investigators wrong for telling him what he can and can't do with his own money? Besides, it is dishonest to focus on the decedent, calling it a "Death Tax," when it is the undeserving HeirHead who would be taxed.

On who's authority? ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS THE OWNER OF HIS OWN SHIT!

How about, on who's authority do you decide what someone else does with wealth that you had no hand in creating?

Granting heredity privileges, whether you like it or not, whether or not wealth is involved, is inevitable. Regardless of how you try to eliminate unfair advantages by oppressing the free will of those around you, the fact of the matter is that those same natural advantages in basic competence and capacity that give a select, tiny few people that extra edge that turns Herculean effort into actual social dominance will still be largely hereditary. You're not God. Stop trying to correct the nature of reality and maybe try focusing on how we can benefit everyone WITHOUT actively oppressing the achievers.

A long time ago our government made a deal with corporate America. Have the forests, oil fields, oceans, farmland, build your factories, pollute. But you got to pay taxes. Especially when they benefit from the roads we build and they tear up with their trucks. The military that defends them so they can sell their shit all around the world.

Need I go on? There’s a social contract that corporations have with American workers too. Fair wages.

Anyways, since the 1970s the social contract has been slowly methodology broken. The gap between rich and poor has widened

It’s not the rich or corporations fault. It’s voters. Or it’s people who don’t vote. Bad citizens

Sorry, but that's a sadly vague story based entirely in stereotypes.

And when did I say that businesses shouldn't have to pay taxes for roads and military protection? That'd be dumb as shit and isn't at all what we're talking about.

 

[sealybobo]

Inheritance Is the Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations

The exception proves the rule. When a few spoiled brats lose it all, it says nothing about their overwhelming undeserved advantages and their absolute control over the rules for letting wannabes make it. In fact, one of the class-climbers' mottoes is, "You have to want it bad enough."

To be fair, it is only logical that 1% of those born in the 1% who wind up in the 1% actually belong there. But even those deserving successes make far more than 1%ers should. There should be no billionaires. So if Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, he ought to be worth $50 million but maintain his same rank among the wealthy.

If Aaron Judge hit 300 homers in a season, he'd still have only 50-homer talent. So conditions would have to change, such as giving every player the right to appoint his son to his position, which would conform to the prevailing economic structure. In that situation, the pitchers would be far inferior to what they are today.

the people who inherit the fortunes of wealthy predecessors often don't represent the most capable hands into which those fortunes could have landed, I don't believe that you or I or anyone else ought to have the authority to tell the predecessor who initially created and gathered that wealth what they have to do with it when they die.

The Nobility With No Ability

On whose authority does the HeirDad have the power to tell us we have to accept his destructive privilege of setting up his sons ahead of others with more ability? It is a fallacy to not allow the excluded and cheated to question the status quo, preaching that it has primacy and anything else is aggression.

Granting hereditary privileges is no better than bribery. Does the fact that the briber uses "his own money" justify his action? Are the investigators wrong for telling him what he can and can't do with his own money? Besides, it is dishonest to focus on the decedent, calling it a "Death Tax," when it is the undeserving HeirHead who would be taxed.

On who's authority? ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS THE OWNER OF HIS OWN SHIT!

How about, on who's authority do you decide what someone else does with wealth that you had no hand in creating?

Granting heredity privileges, whether you like it or not, whether or not wealth is involved, is inevitable. Regardless of how you try to eliminate unfair advantages by oppressing the free will of those around you, the fact of the matter is that those same natural advantages in basic competence and capacity that give a select, tiny few people that extra edge that turns Herculean effort into actual social dominance will still be largely hereditary. You're not God. Stop trying to correct the nature of reality and maybe try focusing on how we can benefit everyone WITHOUT actively oppressing the achievers.

A long time ago our government made a deal with corporate America. Have the forests, oil fields, oceans, farmland, build your factories, pollute. But you got to pay taxes. Especially when they benefit from the roads we build and they tear up with their trucks. The military that defends them so they can sell their shit all around the world.

Need I go on? There’s a social contract that corporations have with American workers too. Fair wages.

Anyways, since the 1970s the social contract has been slowly methodology broken. The gap between rich and poor has widened

It’s not the rich or corporations fault. It’s voters. Or it’s people who don’t vote. Bad citizens

Sorry, but that's a sadly vague story based entirely in stereotypes.

And when did I say that businesses shouldn't have to pay taxes for roads and military protection? That'd be dumb as shit and isn't at all what we're talking about.

I’m starting to agree with you guys. All these issues come down to poor people. Poor people, at least 80% of them are bad citizens and will always be poor. The 20% will get out.

That’s true in both black and white communities

 

[MaryL]

"a paper by the FBI revealed that, by the time they are 40, high school dropouts born to rich families are as likely to be earning high salaries as college graduates from poor families."

race and class excuse nothing. they are not the crutches with which the misanthropic and morally ambivalent can prop themselves up as standing tall.

failing to understand that reflects a lack of imagination and empathy. take a bunch of teenage boys from the whitest, safest suburb in America and plunk them down in a place where their friends are murdered and they are constantly attacked. signal that no one cares, and fail to solve murders. limit their options for escape. then see what happens.

Truer thing has never been said. But seriously what about these poor kids, all twenty of them. I understand people, and bullshit reeks. You don't choose your environment. You can either transcend or just go with the flow and drink the kool aid and act like stereotype. Free will cuts both ways.