I agree that it’s an interesting point, but completely irrelevant from a practical standpoint. So Gates Sr. has no problem giving a huge chunk of his estate to the government. Good for him. Does that mean that all people have no problem with it? If we were to abolish the estate tax, I’m sure that Mr. Gates could still give a big, ol’ chunk of cash to the government, and they wouldn’t mind a bit. What gives him the authority to decide that everyones else must, as well?
I swear, I tire of hearing arguments for the estate tax that consist of “So-and-so is filthy rich, and he likes the estate tax!” It’s the intellectual equivalent of arguing that Bob the Soldier favors invading Iraq, therefore the discussion is closed, we’re going in.
Jeff
So I’m curious Scylla. Would you like to remove welfare? And if so, what will happen to those who are just incapable - for whatever reason - of holding down a job? I don’t want to get into accusations or rhetoric, but are you envisaging a return of the workhouse here?
Well, I never claimed that the argument that Bill Gates Sr. (along with Buffett and several other prominent wealthy folks) support the estate tax is a strong argument in favor of it by itself. But, then again, your argument about Gates’s contribution to charity is hardly a strong argument in opposition to not taxing inheritance.
Also, the point in my mind is that those who oppose the estate tax often feel that it is offensive because it is robbery of the rich and that it is being proposed by people who hate the rich. So, it is worthwhile to point out that some of these rich are sympathetic to the tax and don’t feel they are being robbed by it.
I don’t think Scylla is arguing for the removal of all welfare. He is just pointing out how, when implemented too broadly, it can be counterproductive to a society.
Who decides when a person is beyond helping theirself? When should some agency come in and decide “this person can’t make it on their own so we should make it for them?” We are talking about the very incentive to become a contributing member of this society; we should be very careful when messing with it.
**
Again who decides what is disproportionate? This entire house of cards is built on the premise that the world is an unfair place (which it unquestionably is), but the “fair” you talk about is not something that can be measured directly. There is no perfect solution, that is unless you can suggest one that doesn’t involve inherently relative appraisals of a worker’s “worth.”
Your intentions are good but those don’t always translate into reality.
Never mind Bill Gates Sr.'s special interest in keeping the tax around.
I oppose the estate tax because I believe that the state should have no right to take away what I have built and would like to entrust to my posterity. Don’t speak for me.
We have done exactly that. By some fluke, this hyperintelligent ape evolved to roughly the same form as we have now. Agriculture, language, art, mathematics, these things did not evolve, the creature that progressed in these pursuits was precisely the same creature, Hom Sap. We might very well have continued being a moderate success as a species of hunters and gatherers, it is what we evolved to be. But we have gone beyond evolution, we are self-willed mutants, that is what make us humans, the whole that exceeds the sum of its evolutionary parts.
It is reminiscent, perhaps intentionally so, of the “nauralist” argument much favored by some conservatives, to the effect that humans are just “by nature” greedy and competitive, nothing can be done about that, its best to accomodate that urge with some socially useful task, i.e., like Bill Gates, inventing an operating system that increases hypertension, alcoholism and drug use world wide.
We did not “evolve” ethics and morality any more than we evolved mathematics. I find it difficult to accept that anyone can place an ethic of property, even, dare I say it, an ethic of work, above an ethic of compassion.
Side note: the question of doctors. I find that especially interesting, as one side points out that the doctor puts so much work, time and education into becoming a doctor, therefore he deserves to be wealthy. It reminds me of an essay I read (I think, CS Lewis, correct me if I’m wrong and you’re a smartass) pointing out that doctors didn’t use to be rich, and the schooling was just as rigorous. Doctors didn’t become doctors because they wanted to make money, but because they wanted to be doctors!. Like teachers, it was known that they didnt make much money but they were respected and admired for their choice of vocation.
A mere vanity. The fact that mankind now holds the knowledge and power to direct its own evolution does not exempt us from the fact that we are still very much a part of it.
It is mere vanity to think so.
Agriculture - evolved, babes. Our capacity for manipulating our environment is hardly unique. Mere ants raise aphids like cows, for the same reasons we raise cattle. They have mold farms. Beavers manipulate their environments, as do countless other species.
Language - I giggle derisively like a virginal schoolgirl at the assertion that language did not evolve. Notwithstanding the fact that many other animals communicate vocally, we have whole regions of our brain that evolved specifically so that we communicate with each other by language. It is perhaps our prime evolutionary adaptation.
Art - A mere offshoot of language. Deep in lost history, Og the caveman drew a picture of a mammoth on a cave wall, and positions of other hunters. He found that this created a more lasting and permanent impression of what he was trying to convey than “ooga ooga ooga.” The next day when they saw the Mammoth everybody remembered the painting and the plan worked. Thus was the ability to communicate with written symbols formed and combined with language to later create art and enhance our evolutionary path.
Mathematics - A clear adaptation. The ability to understand the world is a necessary precursory to the ability to manipulate it.
All that you’ve given is a function of the mind, which is but an evolutionary adaptation. We are naked, weak and helpless without our capacity to think. That capacity is as bound to us in terms of evolution as the tiger’s claws.
This is true. We are also compassionate and altruistic because it is ultimately in our best interests to be so. We are a set of warring priorities.
Of course we evolved it. It’s much more basic than mathematics and it exists in other animals as well. Will not a mother lion die to defend her cubs? Is that in her best interests? What about a wolfpack. A wolf will defend another’s cubs with fierce determination. Lots of other animals will do similar things.
It comes from being in a pack, or society. Cooperating organisms recieve benefits from cooperation. The society benefits from altruistic behavior, and though the components may suffer from their altruistic actions it benefits the society as a whole. It is therefore advantageous to be part of a society where such altruism occurs.
This very ethos of compassion is a two-edged sword. We are drawn to categorize by our very nature’s. We are supportive of people who think act and believe as we do. We consider them society, and are inclined to act altruistically. Those that we disagree with, we consider other and act with hostility.
Look for example at the ridiculous degree of acrimony that Democrats heap upon Republicans and vice versa. It should be very clear that there are precious few differences between these groups and they should act in concert. Nevertheless we are naturally not happy unless we can divide ourselves into groups to compete.
I can’t imagine why. Is not the basis of our most terrible conflicts simply property, territory, ownership? Do we not kill for these things? How can you not accept that we have not placed property above practically all else?
Ask the Aztecs, or the Amerindians about this.
As for the Doctors, it’s not surprising, at all. A degree of altruism is beneficial to the group as a whole.
Actually, Frank and his co-author Philip Cook go further than this in their book “The Winner Take-All Society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us”. They argue that winner-take-all markets have inefficiencies that likely prevent markets from reaching their full-wealth generating potential. Here is a quote from the book:
Mind you, I’m not claiming this is a proven thesis, but it does pose an interesting challenge to the supply-side arguments. I’d be curious if there have been any attempts by economists to try to investigate these claims empirically (although I must admit it is not obvious to me how one would do so).
How do you respond to my earlier point that in the absence of inheritance there will be wasteful spending? If the inheritance tax jumps to 100% don’t be surprised to see alot of people dying with estates that aren’t worth a penny.
Saying that - what’s wrong with wasteful spending? Wasteful spending keeps the money-go-round going, folks. Wasteful spending pushes the velocity of money up and results in increased output. Wasteful spending is what we want.
Hording we could live without.
Scylla - you seem to be having it both ways. On the one hand you say that our compassion and altruism are natural consequences of our evolution, as they are our selective advantage. On the other you say that in the interests of evolution we should abandon compassion and altruism and encourage competition at all costs. Pick a side, dude
Yes I am having it both ways. There’s no problem with this though. Man is both compassionate and altruistic, as well as greedy and self-centered.
Welfare and unemployment insurance are good things to a degree. They benefit both individuals and society at large. If a little aid saves somebody from a temporary problem that would otherwise destroy them, that is money well spent.
The problem is how we go about treating persistent poverty, generational poverty.
People are growing up in a degree of comfort on the government dole. They have neither the means nor the incentive to help themselves. Their children attend babysitting level schools and graduate them from High School without the most basic skills such as literacy.
Poverty should not be allowed to be like this in modern society. It should be like… well boot camp. It should suck and motivate one to get out of it, while providing the tools necessary to the task.
Our inner city and deep rural schools need to be top notch, and our administrators need to be able to track and kick the kids out that are disciplinary problems, or just killing time, so that the others can learn and be productive.
Damn, Scylla, where do you get this stuff? Did Ronald Regan put out a Big Golden Book of Right-Wing Fairy Tales? You left out the one about the Welfare Queen, cruising to pick up her food stampts in her El Dorado. Or do you remember the beauty he told about the guy who bought orange juice with his food stamp and spent the rest on vodka?
Life for the poor is just too easy, here in America. We need to toughen it up some, make it more like “boot camp”. Doesn’t suck enough, that’s the problem. Those “lucky duckies” (as the Wall Street Journal has it). What bliss is their lot in life.
Tell me you’re kidding, Scylla. Just exaggerating to make a point, get a rise out of somebody. Tell me you don’t really believe this drivel.
Hey, we’re reading the same WSJ editorials! I’ve become kinda addicted to looking at the editorial page every day in the library at the corporation where I work. I even sorta hope there’s an editorial on the environment or tax policy…Gotta get the blood boiling in the morning!
[By the way, is “Nipples, MN” a real place? Between that and your talk about those Nordic beauties up there in another thread a few weeks ago, I think you’re just playin’ with our minds and trying to get us to move up and freeze to death with you folks there in the arctic.]
“Nipples” is a colloquilism for Minneapolis. No one is trying to get you to move here. Its really cold, just like they say. When we say “Get down!”, we mean you are not dressed warmly enough. And boring. Really really dull. Sure, the Nordic beauties, yeah, but they got attitude…like you wouldn’t believe. Don’t come here. Its terrible. Really cold. Go to Iowa. Iowa is nice.
Yeah, you’re right. I don’t beleive it. The fact is, the way it is is just fine. Give the perennially poor just enough to keep them quiet, feed 'em but starve there kids of education. Take away their pride so there’s nothing left but sullen anger, and they turn their government sponsored housing into a cesspool. Set it up so they don’t have a chance.
You’re right. I like the liberal system so much better.
The evolutionary angle to your argument Scylla sounds very “group selectionist” (i.e. wrong). As I understand it, evolution doesn’t work for the good of species. Characteristics that are bad for a species may be selected and that may condemn a species to the dustbin of history. Not being a biologist, I can’t give you any examples, but something like the peacock’s tail seems apposite. Selection for finery may be good for the indivivdual peacock, but from the point of view of the species, a large tax on plumage would surely benefit all.
Sounds like you’re arguing for a meritocracy here. I dunno that anyone here is arguing that we’ve got one now; just that it’s an attractive idea, but one that seems to contain self-destructive tendencies. And of course the bad side-effects of well-intentioned policies are important - but whilst you talk of all the ills of the world as “the liberal system” and talk of the poor as a crop to be harvested it’s not easy to stay on topic.
I’ve met these people. That’s some fairy tale if it comes true, isn’t it? I shudder to think about little kids who eat old ladies. That one didn’t come true yet, did it?
