It doesn't force families to spend less tome with each other.

You might aswell say that the availability of jobs and housing allows people the freedom to move out of their parent's home and thus weakens family ties. Otherwise people would all have to work in their parent's homes until the parents die and it becomes their home!

Damn'd economic prosperity, weakening family ties!

Good post from BoSox about giving other forms of assistance... Eg a hot meal, clean blanket, use of a hot shower & laundry, work for some cash..if there's going to be a cash payment.

Good reference Zmaj..Conan Doyle's tale of the journalist who found he could earn more as a grotesque beggar than he could as a "lowly paid worker".
Someone made a scathing comment about the apparent lack of a willingness of homless types to work at a McDonald's... Well it's the " working poor" in the USA who really get stiffed. Working three or four different jobs, often in those service jobs, on minimum wages and short shifts, so they work 60 hrs a week, spend 30% to 40% of income on rent
One thing about trickle up economics.. Compared to trickle down..there's virtually no leakage into offshore tax havens. Give the minimum wage earners big tax breaks and they don't hoard much of it, they spend it, creating economic activity, demand for goods and services.

If anything the 50-60 hour work week weakens families

the same people who suggest the poor can pull themselves up by the boot straps by exploiting capitalism are now pushing to prevent them from doing so with their business model.

What I don't get is why we are trying to ban panhandling. Did someone die recently from it? You have a choice to give money or not. The panhandler has many choices how to approach you. He can ask for food and hope you are lazy and give money, he can ask for a job and hope you take sympathy and give money or he could play it blunt and just ask for money. I've had panhandlers come up and recite poetry (actually good poetry) and then say if you enjoyed that I'd gladly take a donation. It's a business with competition and innovation.

Just saying that we can't honestly say the poor can pick themselves up while removing any assistance and making illegal the process by which they pick themselves up.

Also stop making fucking BS laws. Less laws.

Ironically them being in jail actually costs taxpayers more..

In jail you get neals. Basic healthcare. Its not a great place to live but its a roof over your head.

Hey bb! How many days did you serve in the can after that last bender?

i don't think we should be giving prisoners as good of a standard of living, but i also think we should lower our standards in MANY respects when sending people to prison.

drug crimes alone need to start being decriminalized en masse (save the ones connected to organized crime)

What is the incentive to be law abiding when you can just keep comitting minor offense crimes and get free lodging - free meals - gym nembership - access to a library for free if you stay on good behavior.

One thing that would fundamentally reset the playing field in America would be inheritance laws and regulations. No father or mother can pass their wealth to a child or family member. Eliminating wills entirely would absolutely level the playing field and end this nonsense of some incompetant heir getting a huge buyout for being a complete tool

Think of what could be insta-funded if upon death npbody gets to have a will over where their money goes. You could literally fund social security - medicare - and a single payer health system with an insanely low tax burden on consumers.

And youd also eliminate apathetic business owners who.inherit power while lacking skills or motivation.

Instead ownership would transfer to appointed people by boards of directors.

@brainbomb

wow, take away inheritances. when people do this to the rich, most people shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" and that allows nut job ideologies to press even further.

demanding to take someone's hard earned wealth, away from their own children, and redistributing it through social security and medicare... why do you live in the US again? why not go to some more socialized country? honestly if you want to go ruin other places be my guest just leave the USA alone. or... at LEAST keep it contained to your own state.

this is destroying family structures. i mean the left blames racism and russians for the 2016 elections, but it's shit like this that really gets even moderates pushed against them. even many former Obama voters switched to Trump, a large demographic never talked about. that's because at least Obama was smart enough to hide his socialist tendencies and pretend to care about American Culture.

Inheritance taxes do not destroy family structures. The first $5 million or so is not taxed. There are a handful of anecdotes where the family farm had to be sold, but by and large the uber wealthy own stock which can be liquidated easily to pay for tax. And of course this is how they "earn" their wealth with criminally low capital gains tax rates.

Ah yes - the ole redneck "if yoi dont like this country you can get tha hell out" routine. Nice.

Heres your can of chew and a 6 pack of miller low life to wash down your ridiculous statements

Regarding the inheritance issue...

A few years ago, I read that 88% of the Dutch didn't own a home. They all lived in rented apartments. The percentage must be over 90% by now.

By contrast, in Croatia where I live, 80% of people own a home.

Now why is that? Because Croatia is a more volatile economy than the Netherlands. People need something concrete to fall back upon in case of a national economic disaster. For the same reason, people in the Caucasus still have golden teeth. Insurance.

I think this principle could be applied to all inheritance. The stronger the economy, the less incentive there is for people to have unproductive stuff like houses, land or even savings.

In the best economies, what children inherit is not some inert lump of capital, but money that is alive, flowing, and that will flow into the hands of others if you don't make an effort to keep it alive, making the economy even stronger.

That and limiting what gets to be considered inheretence won't help much since as a rich parent if I couldn't have a will I'd just open a bank account in my kids name and dump my money there.

Additionally there is nothing whatsoever in the constitution about proection of ones right to pass their wealth to their kids upon death. Its not life - liberty - and property contrary to what libertarians try to attribute wealth to - wealth is currency printed by the state. Technically upon death you could very easily argue that the state should inherit their property back in full circle.

And thats pretty easy to keep track of too Byron. The point is two-fold keeping your children from milking their way through life waiting til you die. Theres a reason why so many of the US billionaires have decided not to give their kids inheritance at all. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet have both said when they die all their money will go to charity not their kids

@brainbomb

"wealth is currency printed by the state"

We've already been through this more than once. Please put such ideas back in the box of magic tricks if you want to discuss seriously.

Now my idea is rather extreme and would never happen anyway. But capitalism thrives when money changes hands not when the same dynastic families control all the factors and all the wealth from generation to generation.

Take the example of the character Bobby in the film Horrible Bosses. He inherits his dads business totally incompetant. Incapable of running it. He proceeds to blow his inheritance on cocaine and hookers.

Is this really the types of consumer behaviors we hope to protect ?

The main problem with your idea, brainbomb, is that it ignores human nature. Sure, you can build a theoretical system ignoring the human drive to provide for their offspring, but what's the use of such models?

@JK

that's not what Brainbomb said though, and it's the first 5.49 million dollars for the FEDERAL estate tax that is free, although States have their own lower estate taxes (only some of them do)

@Brainbomb if you are in a country where the founding principles directly bely your own principles, changing the entire nation to suit your desires probably isn't the way to go. and i'm not talking about specific points of policy, but actual principles.

If I promise you a dozen apples but you arent starving and the state intervenes and feeds the starving your claim to those apples is irrelevant the societal need to do what is right should always be placed at the forefront of what our laws hope to defend.

Some caveats to this could include if the inheritor makes under 50,000 a year. Or you could go even lower based on need. Otherwise I dont see why a guy making 15 million - inherits another 100 million from a will would even possibly seem more important that he gets that money than that a hospital be built or that cancer research is furthered or that perhaps thousands will never die of starvation now.

@Yanik ive lived in America my.entire life. I have eligibility for dual citizenship as my grandfather served in the British Army evading Nazi Sniper fire. My dads side of his family settled in Plattsmouth Nebraska before it was even a state. One of my relatives was the first to drown in the Missouri River.

Im allowed to believe the following

A. I am an american living in what is 'allegedly' capitalism.

B. America is actually much much closer to Fuedalism with regards to money. Wealthy families tend to stay wealthy from generation to generation. Rich people will argue its because rich people are smarter and harder working. (Is this actually true or does the system favor people who can afford accountants/have investments and understand how to beat the system.

C. How do you create a truer capitalism? Democrats would argue that the givernment can both directly and indirectly create jobs through a gamut of options. Republicans-would focus on the hope lowering rich peoples taxes motivates them and frees them up to hire more. Libertarians seem to believe that personal wealth is an extension of rights given to all people. And finally Anarchists just want to see everything descend into choas

Brainbomb, I love it how you think you need to be "allowed" to believe anything. Allowed by your all-powerful state, I presume. Did you ask for permission at the office?

@brainbomb

"If I promise you a dozen apples but you arent starving and the state intervenes and feeds the starving"

right now, i have to ask, why does the state have to step in? why can't we get back to focus on charities and the like, rather than receding into government? the more and more you go down this path of government control, the more and more they'll take.

no government program naturally shrinks over time, government programs are made to expand until they become such an inefficient mess they are entirely insolvent and must be bailed out.

"your claim to those apples is irrelevant"

if you had already bestowed them upon me, and i have ownership of them, then no, you have no right to take my property.

"the societal need"

ah, why is it always the SOCIETAL need, why do we not focus on community and charity values? furthermore, what constitutes society? if the far left gets their way, then our global society will span all across Africa as well. why am i paying for people who never have affected me in any real way?

"to do what is right"

right, according to You. the problem with basing principles around subjective feelings and world views, is that they can change on a whim, and often they ignore the rights of people, simply because they are successful.

"should always be placed at the forefront of what our laws hope to defend."

once again, you say "should" but haven't given me any context on why taking stuff away from some person to feed another, is always a moral imperative. if someone has acquired resources because they have engaged in many consensual transactions where each party has benefitted, why are they now to be punished because others did not put in as much effort to engage with other people.

if your response is "but it's hard for the poor," well then WHO is making welfare traps that incentives keeping your income from raising too high, not buying cars? WHO is forcing businesses into MASSIVE regulatory struggles, so that more costs go to administrative fees than actual labor? oh yes, this would be the government.

"Some caveats to this could include if the inheritor makes under 50,000 a year."

depending on where you live, 60,000$ isn't some massive amount. it's downright middle class. this is horrific.

"Or you could go even lower based on need."

you could lower what? the threshold? or you give more to those who have less?

poor people in America don't just need handouts, they need structural change. don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease. the disease is government regulation keeping monopolies in power, which hurt the poor working class. we need a competitive market, and we need to stall immigration, so that there's a more proportional job growth (which needs deregulation) to population growth ratio, so wages aren't shit. if your response is minimum wage, i can accept a minimum wage to an extent, but it's only a bandaid for macro-problems we're facing.

"Otherwise I dont see why a guy making 15 million - inherits another 100 million from a will would even possibly seem more important that he gets that money than that a hospital be built or that cancer research is furthered or that perhaps thousands will never die of starvation now."

if your only measure of morality is by the number of people who are sick and die, then we need to take all the money from the rich, and even the Middle class in America AAAAND the "poor" and give it to African children.

just for efficiencies sake. if that is your main moral starting point, then you're going to strip away all other rights to achieve this.

but, just to prove that you're wrong in 2 ways, let's go though this.

"hospital be built"

and who do we give the hospital to? the government? inefficient and crowds out the market. an already big company? now it's a capital subsidy and you just helped give a boost to a company #MonopolyMaker. do we give it to new start ups? sure, and accept giant risk that it's an entire bust.

"or that cancer research is furthered"

throwing money at cancer isn't going to solve it, an innovative competitive market will. if you take 100 million dollars and give it ALL to one researching company, you're going to be giving them an unfair boost, and create a monopoly that can create a deadweight loss with higher prices. do you split up the 100 million $ among ALLLLL parma-biotech-universities researching cancer equally? congratulations, you just bought everyone lunch for a few days.

"or that perhaps thousands will never die of starvation now."

100 million dollars is not going to go far to feed everyone, so that they will NEVER DIE OF STARVATION. i mean goddamnit, a TRILLION dollars could feed all the food insecure households for a a few years, and what then? do the rich MAGICALLY regenerate money? or do they perhaps need some capital reserves?

the reason why so many people are starving, AND 40% of all food DOESNT MAKE IT TO MARKET, is because government have enshrined multiple agricultural tycoons, so that they pay them not to produce, have heavy price controls, and buy up surpluses that go into landfills. all the while, prices stay high, due the uncompetitive wasteful nature of the industry. congratulations, you just made the poor WORSE off.

you see, supply side economics is wrong when it says that giving money to the rich massively increases the economy (or even proportionally to the amount you took). however, it does accurately confirm that taking massive amounts of money from the rich, have negative job, wage, insurance (before the ACA, 90% of insured people were insured through their job) and even education cost effects (where do you think colleges get so much of their money from?)

this socialist bullshit needs to die