Ok, maybe "REALLY" was a bit of a stretch, it is still at least tangentially related to the original topic. It's not that i mind discussions going off topic, I just sort of felt like for quite a few posts there it went into pretty silly territory, or at least I thought, uninteresting territory. Seems to have righted itself somewhat and gone back into something that's at least somewhat interesting. I mostly blame Dipfool for any problems anyway. ;-)

Yeah, but the shock value gets people talking. Realistically, it isn't a solution to anything and would cause more problems, but if it weren't for the inheritance issue, would it be all that bad of an idea?

Also, a caveat in my inheritance ideas... I would make the first level inheritance free, but additional levels I would tax the hell out of. So, take the inheritance you father received and that becomes taxable if he leaves more than that to you (adjusted for inflation of course). Let's say my gandmother leaves my parents $1.5 mil when she goes (about what her and my grandpa had when he died in the 90s). when they both pass, my brother and I should find the first 1.5 mil of the estate taxed outrageously, and anything above that not taxed at all. That money would be pulled from the estate before we saw anything. If it was not available in readily liquid or liquifiable assets, property and stocks would be sold to pay the taxes. Then we would get our inheritance. Personal items (like my parents bookcase which they have as mine in their will and my dad's woodshop equipment which is my brothers) would be untouched. For things like houses or with values above say 10 grand (random number, could be set to something else), those would be included in the share and, if they were left to an individual, the individual would have to either sell them to come up with the taxes or chose to give up an equivalent value in the common property to compensate for that items share of the taxes.

I'm no politician nor an economics or tax law major, so these thoughts would have to be run through with a fine tooth comb and scrutinized to avoid loopholes. But this could return part of that "fairness" you seek without corrupting the "fairness" I seek.

Actually, Jamie, the households would be split as, in your example, those families either file married filing jointly or as head of household. It generally gets them the most money back and reduces their tax liability. In the US, man and women own the propety together unless a prenup is signed and even then the prenup only applies to what they each brought into the marriage. What they make is still a shared asset when they get divorced, so having the household income combined and divided between all members of voting age who were listed on the households tax return would still be fair. I already covered the issue of zero tax liability when I said give every a certain minimum number of voting shares.

Ah, ok. I don't really understand the US tax system as it is quite different from ours.

I still think the idea of giving more votes to the rich is just crazy. It's a horrible idea. The net result would be that even more poor people would stop voting, further undermining the legitimacy of your already dubious democracy.

It's a great idea. It reduces the temptation of groups like Acron to pay the poor to vote a certain way because the mass of poor votes wouldn't be worth as much as they are now. But it encourages the poor to unite and vote together as their collective vioices would carry more weight due to the minimum being higher than their zero tax liability.

*ACORN (an acronym), not Acron (a typo to boot).

@Draugnar - You do realize you are essentially arguing for the establishment of an Aristocracy right?

But an Aristocracy that can change and evolve. Where innovation, not bloodline, gets you in the club. One where anyone with an idea and a will to put it in action can rise above his or her current position and become part of the Aristocracy.

Additionally, while I'm not sure your inheritance idea is totally insane (though it sounds needlessly complicated, I think a simple tax on all inheritances above a certain level is easier to understand, fairer, and less prone to abuse), how long do you think that would last under a system in which the rich have more votes than the poor? Maybe... one election cycle? I would imagine that the first thing the rich would do under your system is use their increased voting power to overturn your inheritance idea. You're setting up a system whereby the rich not only have all the advantages of being rich (which certainly comes with a certain level of extra political power already), but you're giving them even more political influence, which they could almost certainly use to assure they gained even more wealth, thus increasing their power even more. I don't think you've really thought this idea through...

@Draugnar - "Where innovation, not bloodline, gets you in the club." Maybe for a short time, but what motivation would this new aristocracy have for allowing that to happen all that often? I think you'd quickly see more and more government policies meant to benefit the rich and powerful and to keep innovators out. (We see that NOW, why would you think giving the wealthy even more power would change that?).

@DrOct - You present some real dilemas that give me pause. As I said, I'm neither an economics expert or a political pundit. I deal in logic and how it can beused to make data flow and be transformed. So I don't always think about the motivational side of things as clearly as I should seeing as no computer yet has an intellect and is self aware such that it can actually make a decision that goes against what it's programming says to do.

@Draugnar - Well, much like communism, it sounds good at first but... people aren't angels.

Jaimet actually claims that China is not a communist country. This is both depressing and hilarious.

China is not a communist country at all! it was maybe ....30 - years ago. now i guess you could call it a Totalitarian Nationalist State with a lot of corporate welfare. China is the living proof that capitalism and the market will not automatically bring democracy

sorry to double post but MW you just showed that you either know nothing about China or nothing about communism or that you think just because the ruling elite of China have the word "communist" in their official party name it actually means something. Cuba is probably the closest thing we have to a "communist" country i would guess

"Totalitarian Nationalist State with a lot of corporate welfare"

What do you think communism is?

Corporate welfare isn't communism, the USA has a awful lot(as does japan,europe etc) of corporate welfare. the US whole defense industries megaliths live and breathe corporate welfare, sucking on the public purse string is their way of life. In Japan we have infrastructure corporate welfare, highways, train lines and bridges to nowhere, concrete everywhere and large fat construction companies funneling that a percentage of that same money back into politicians reelection committees, same as the US but here its construction companies not defense contractors and large agribusinesses.

@The_Master_Warrior: China is not a communist country because it has a mixed economy. In China, private businesses are allowed to operate, and private individuals are allowed to amass wealth. This is not communism.

Just because the ruling party calls itself "Communist" does not automatically mean they are. If the Democrats in the USA decided to re-name themselves "The Communist Party" but changed none of their policies, this would not really mean the USA was now a communist country.

@The_Master_Warrior
True communism as described by Karl Marx is far from totalitarian and has no corporations to provide corporate welfare to.

The U.S. is socialist now, and moving closer to communism daily. I'm seriously tempted to mail a case of Mountain Dew to the Supreme Court Building, because nine people are asleep at the switch.

You're right. The public monopolies, nationalization of utilities, and inefficient guaranteed employment are everywhere.

i was right...you are a teabagger! wow, my first confirmed sighting

I was kidding. =P

sorry tiresias i meant the "Master" warrior not you

@The_Master_Warrior
I don't know what you mean by "socialist" or "communism" but you certainly can't mean any of the traditional definitions:

so•cial•ism - a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries.

com•mun•ism - a political movement that believes in an economic system in which the state controls the means of producing everything on behalf of the people. It aims to create a society in which everyone is treated equally.

so•cial•ism - a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries.

com•mun•ism - a political movement that believes in an economic system in which the state controls the means of producing everything on behalf of the people. It aims to create a society in which everyone is treated equally.

What the fuck do you think the Demoncrats have been trying to do all this time?

As someone who is from a country whose constitution describes itself as socialist, I have to say that anyone who thinks the current US administration is socialist is either blind, delusional or an imbecile.

@SunZi

Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Marx saw a period of totalitarian control by some sort of centralized authority as a necessary stepping stone (of unmentioned duration) in the development of his ideal post-revolutionary society.

@SteevoKun
Yes, as a transition and only because he saw that as the only way the bourgeoisie could kept from returning to power. All I'm trying to clear up here is the popular confusion between politics and economics. Totalitarianism is a political system, socialism is an economic system and communism is both. Just like capitalism does not equal democracy socialism does not equal totalitarianism.