A MODEST PROPOSAL

However, I do feel a person should be able to leave their kids any money they wish without a steep penalty. If the money was earned and taxes on it paid, why should the kids be penalized for successful parents?

A further note on the "communications age." Communication does not simply refer to words. It refers to material things, as well. When Gustavus Adolphus landed in northern Germany in late 1630 with his world class Swedish army, he established immediately several important bases. Two of them were Stralsund (which Sweden kept a grip on for more than a century) and Stettin. Moving out from there, he established several smaller and crucial bases, and moved up (south) the Oder River. The great Imperial general Wallenstein had defeated the Protestants, and driven across northern Germany, with an army of 40,000 men, although conservative estimates place the number of sheer humanity in his train at 100,000 people. (His soldiers campaigned with the wives and children often, and there were camp followers and sutlers who also profited from the army.) Northern Germany was "eaten over," and only forces in fortresses which had accumulated supplies could continue to operated. Wallenstein was fired by the Holy Roman Emperor, in an incident which is a candiate for stupidest military decision of all time. But whether or not Wallenstein had remained in command (he would not come back to command until 1632, by which time the Swedes had radically altered the balance of power), his position would have been compromised. In the late winter and spring of 1631, only armies which could carry their supplies, or have them transported to them, could operate effectively. Food and fodder which had not been stored would not be grown and available until mid-summer at the earliest. Armies in those days did not march until the grass was growing the in spring, by which they could feed their horses, and then only if they had stored supplies.

The Swedes marched from Pomerania through Brandenburg (capital at Berlin) and Saxony (capital at Dresden) to the line of the Elbe River, and the Imperialists were obliged to retreat, often abandoning equipment and supplies, and even men, because the Swedes were able to "operate on their communications." This does not mean that one even need intercept the enemies' supplies. If you can place your forces within a day's ride of heavy cavalry of the roads by which the supplies for your enemy must travel, you have successfully operated on his communications. He must either attack you or retreat.

Communications, then, means the movement of physical objects as well as of words and ideas. It is critical, and not just in the military example. In the late 1950s, the container ship was invented. By the late 1960s, container ships were becoming common. In the Second World War, the United States invented materials handling. This is not to say that it was not done before then, simply that the concept had not until then been articulated. The United States did not operate container ships, but the invention of the lowly floor jack (a device for moving heavily laden pallets of goods easily) worked a revolution in materials handling, and thought was carefully given to assembling and transporting goods. The container ship revolutionized that process. I can load pallets by hand with a crew, and one man or woman using a floor jack can move literally tons of goods to a loading dock in a few hours. These can be loaded unto truck trailers, which are then hauled to a port. The trailer, in the form of a standarized container, is dropped by the tractor, and then loaded onto the container ship by cranes (longshoremen were made more and more irrelevant--no more On the Waterfron), and then shipped overseas to a large modern port, such as Rotterdam, where the containers are unloaded and taken off for the products they contain to be distributed by tractors at the port.

Container ships make possible the globalization of capital. Cheap goods such as toys, shoes, clothing, etc., made cheaply in the far east or other portions of the "third world" can be inexpensively transported by container ships to the United States, Canada, Japan or Europe, and the capitalists can profit on the cheap labor and inexpensive working conditions of other nations because of the greatest revolution in materials handling--of communications in the physical sense--of the modern age. The communications age means not simply the exchange of ideas, but of goods as well.

Setanta
Setanta, for most of my life, I've been a problem solover via my vocations and advocations. For every possible solution, my first rule and question is "what are the incentives for compliance?" I never advocate a solution without first identifying the compliance incentives.

It seems to me that people spend millions to hire experts to find fettering loopholes. This leads to the corruption you describe. So I ask you and other responders, what are the incentives for compliance with the "fettering"?

BBB

Well, my personal take would be to advocate "tough love"--if you want to do business here, follow the rules and be prepared to do hard jail time if we catch you cheating.

Re: Setanta


I think this is an interesting point.

One of the things that worries me about messing with capitalism is that at the heart of the matter, all that really matters is the consumers dollar. We could put laws and regulations and taxes in place all that help force change. None of that would work as well (or quickly) as the consumer simply not supporting a company that practices labor methods that they don't agree with. All of that may work but at the end you still have laws and regluations and taxes in place all designed to slow down capitalism. Like BBB stated, they are really good at finding ways around these laws.

However if joe public simply stops supporting companies that practice slave labor, the company is either forced to change or go out of business. Perhaps the focus should be more on education of these practices to the consumer instead of regluations or laws.

JP
JP, the problem is that most people don't care as long as they can pay less for a product. WalMart is the perfect example. For low income families, there is not much of a choice. Only families with surplus income can indulge in such moral decisions. I hate WalMart and never shop there even though I live on a fixed income.

BBB

For those that cannot afford to make such moral decisions, don't you think that regulation or taxation will increase the cost of commodities and hurt these people even more?

I'm not sure we can have it both ways. No amount of tampering, or even letting things be, will make everyone economically equal.

You keep addressing the topic of economic equality between individuals. That is not the topic. The topic is economic equity among nations. Equity is not synonymous with eqality.

The first definition of equity at Answers-dot-com is: The state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair.

How can you talk about one without the other? What good does equality among nations do if there large inequities among the citizens within the nations?

But in the interests of keeping your thread on track, say the word and I'll move on.

I don't consider it reasonable, and i don't know that anyone here is saying it is reasonable, to expect that economic equality as between individuals is attainable. Rather, i assert that the next significant improvement in societies will be the attainment, or the attempt to attain, an international economic system which is just, impartial and fair.

Though it is "my" thread, i'm not trying to force you to discuss anything which does not interest you, or to desist from a discussion which does interest you. I'm just attempting to point out that we seem to be speaking past one another.

So shift the burden to the middle and lower class so they are are penalized of just trying to get by? Why don't we eliminate sales tax for the rich too since they already have paid taxes on these dollars. Taxing those with more disposable income is a principle as old as human history.

Allowing people to keep their inheritance would help the middle and lower class most of all... they have less and get to keep more.



Nowhere have I said give a tax break to the rich, I am merely advocating that people be allowed to do with their post-tax furtunes as they wish.

I agree with JP on that issue. Considering, however, that they get rich because of the excellence of the nation in which they reside (i speak solely of the American example), i favor taxing the bejesus out of 'em before they croak. I think the sales tax should be eliminated altogether, as being regressive. Ramp up the local and state income taxes, i doubt you'll see very many wealthy people looking to emmigrate.

WTF are you talking about? How could eliminating the estate tax help the middle and lower class. how could it help anyone but the super rich? Your post makes zero sense.

Only to some one who doesn't have any to begin with.

Reading comprehension was never a strong attribute for Roxxxanne.

I'm not sure what you mean by helping the middle/lower classes either john, having no estate tax at all wouldn't help them at all in the vast majority of cases.

please explain

First off, my name is not john.

Second, kids of rich parents, even after an estate tax will still be rich. Kids of middle class parents after an estate tax have a lot less money than they started with. If you do away with the estate tax, the rich stay rich (and why shouldn't they... it is their money), and the people that could really use the money most, poor and middle class kids, get to keep more of it.

sorry jpinmilwaukee re the john...

re the estate tax, in this year 2006, an estate worth less than 2 million dollars is not subject to a federal estate tax. If the estate is over 2 million, only the amount over that is subject to federal estate tax.

Actually a couple could shelter 4 million dollars from estate tax with an A B Trust.

In this type of trust, one person is A, the other B. Let's assume they split 4 million between the 2 livng trusts.
When either A or B dies, the first 2 million remains untaxed in the trust. When B dies, his 2 million goes to his/her heirs, along with the untaxed 2 million when the first person died.

So, I don't think that's a common occurance for middle or lower income people. Unless there was a rich uncle that came out of the woodwork that no one knew about.

You may be right Chai... I was looking at this from the IRS website:



Even so, why should estates worth more than 2 million (or gifts worth more than 1) be taxed so much more? Becasue their parents were successful? When I die I should be able to leave my kids whatever I want no matter how much I am worth. The government has no right to that money and is highly unlikely that they would spend it any more effectively than a private citizen.

ps... no problem re: john... just thought I'd let you know.

pps... I am interested to see more discussion of the topic on hand will stop hijacking the thread now. My apologies to Set.