Libertarianism

[pErvinalia]

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything.

No it doesn't. Not unless you're incapable of recognising any number between zero and infinity.

It means that if property is only held at the absolute whim of the state, then private property is non-existent.

This is a point many of us keep saying, in reality private-property is a state enabled concept (the right to it and the expectation of protection from stealing/vandalism etc). Libertarians are out there on the fringes thinking there is some inherent right to private property. Even if there was, there is no confidence in the value of that right without the state to back your right.

In Ireland, we have compulsory purchase orders, to divest private property. This is how we balance private property rights with the needs of the community.These orders are subject to a strict process and are subject to judicial review. This means that the state does not have control over private assets.

Other countries are not necessarily like this.

Well I think both the US and Australia are exactly like this. I would be pretty surprised if Canada and the UK weren't similar.

Where assets can be arbitrarily removed from private hands, then there is no such thing as private property.

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

[pErvinalia]

Well you should pay the military to lock them all up if you are only worried about your own welfare.

It's one option for the underclass but its a far more expensive one. the choices I can see are

a) shoot them all, messy expensive dangerous
b) lock them all up, even more expensive, dangerous
c) give them a pittance to keep them quiet

c) is the prefered option in the western world

Jonno, you're like the Seth of the authoritarian left. You should move to North Korea presently!

[MrJonno]

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

But thats making the assumption that the right to do a job and earn money for it is 'free', you are basically paying for the privelege of living in a civilized country and going to work.

Same with owning any property, there is a legal system which costs money that allows you to have private property. This needs to be paid for via taxes. Don't pay taxes and in the end you lose your private property

[pErvinalia]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

So some lobbyists can be paid and some can't?

I note that your position is that inheritance and "power games" are not real work.

What is a "power game"?

Buying votes. Using your economic might to bully and take advantage of those with less economic might.

What is "real work"?

Well, as I said, doing nothing is not real work. Investing is another issue, and to be honest, i'm not entirely sure on what my ultimate views on it are. investment in tangible goods is certainly different and, IMO, of more value than investment in financial instruments.

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

Sorry. Can we keep this discussion focussed on the normal cases, and not the rare exceptions like Paris Hilton. Making generally applicable laws based on rare exceptions is a bad idea.

Well, i'm more concerned with vast sums of unearnt wealth. I'm not at all concerned with a modest plumber wanting to pass money on to his kids.

I note also that your assumption here is that the assets in question do not belong to the plumber, but to the state.

The state is what underwrites any asset. Ultimately everything belongs to the state.

Regarding the tax paid - it would have been the tax levied during his working life, as levied by the state.

Yes, but you can have a situation where little tax is paid in life and a large inheritance tax is paid or an equivalent large amount of working tax is paid and a small (or no) amount of inheritance tax is paid. Your analysis is too simplistic to discuss in depth.

[pErvinalia]

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

But thats making the assumption that the right to do a job and earn money for it is 'free', you are basically paying for the privelege of living in a civilized country and going to work.

I've got no idea what that sentence means.

[MrJonno]

Well you should pay the military to lock them all up if you are only worried about your own welfare.

It's one option for the underclass but its a far more expensive one. the choices I can see are

a) shoot them all, messy expensive dangerous
b) lock them all up, even more expensive, dangerous
c) give them a pittance to keep them quiet

c) is the prefered option in the western world

Jonno, you're like the Seth of the authoritarian left. You should move to North Korea presently!

I share his disdain for the masses but unlike him I don't want to live in castle/war zone. The reason we don't have Marxist dictatorships is due to the fusion of capitalism with socialism. Ie a welfare state for the losers in the capitalist system. This is what prevents revolution.

In the UK we have a few % of the population that are completely incapable of every doing anything useful, they can't be trained, they are so badly brought up that they can't even queue at a bus stop without getting stressed.

Underclass at least in the UK does not refer to people who have poorly paid jobs, it refers to people who have never worked or are likely to.

Paying welfare to keep them quiet is what allows me to have a reasonable middle class existance, its what allows anyone to do so. I don't have to like this people through

[MrJonno]

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

But thats making the assumption that the right to do a job and earn money for it is 'free', you are basically paying for the privelege of living in a civilized country and going to work.

I've got no idea what that sentence means.

It means living in a decent country is a privelege and needs to be paid for, nothing is free including earning a living

[Cormac]

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything.

No it doesn't. Not unless you're incapable of recognising any number between zero and infinity.

It means that if property is only held at the absolute whim of the state, then private property is non-existent.

This is a point many of us keep saying, in reality private-property is a state enabled concept (the right to it and the expectation of protection from stealing/vandalism etc). Libertarians are out there on the fringes thinking there is some inherent right to private property. Even if there was, there is no confidence in the value of that right without the state to back your right.

In Ireland, we have compulsory purchase orders, to divest private property. This is how we balance private property rights with the needs of the community.These orders are subject to a strict process and are subject to judicial review. This means that the state does not have control over private assets.

Other countries are not necessarily like this.

Well I think both the US and Australia are exactly like this. I would be pretty surprised if Canada and the UK weren't similar.

Where assets can be arbitrarily removed from private hands, then there is no such thing as private property.

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

Indeed. But the point is that there is somewhat of a contract around these matters. We should have a measure of certainty as to what taxes will be applied and when. This allows you to make commitments and save. If the government decudes to levy further taxes on already taxed money, I might as well spend every penny I earn on fripperies like cocaine and hookers. At least that way, I'd benefit from my money.

But as regards property, it depends on what your view of the state is. Is the state sovereign or the people.

In the UK, it is the state, which is why the crown prerogative still exists, and is wielded by the Department of Defence amongst others. Crown prerogative is not subject to judicial oversight. This is I some people whose lands were appropriated by the military were never compensated.

This cannot happen in Ireland, where the state is not sovereign.

Neither can the state imprison people here indefinitely without trial. The government in the USA is doing this, and the government in Britain has attempted to do this on several occasions over the last few years. It has only been prevented from doing so by the EU.

[pErvinalia]

Well you should pay the military to lock them all up if you are only worried about your own welfare.

It's one option for the underclass but its a far more expensive one. the choices I can see are

a) shoot them all, messy expensive dangerous
b) lock them all up, even more expensive, dangerous
c) give them a pittance to keep them quiet

c) is the prefered option in the western world

Jonno, you're like the Seth of the authoritarian left. You should move to North Korea presently!

I share his disdain for the masses but unlike him I don't want to live in castle/war zone. The reason we don't have Marxist dictatorships is due to the fusion of capitalism with socialism. Ie a welfare state for the losers in the capitalist system. This is what prevents revolution.

In the UK we have a few % of the population that are completely incapable of every doing anything useful, they can't be trained, they are so badly brought up that they can't even queue at a bus stop without getting stressed.

Underclass at least in the UK does not refer to people who have poorly paid jobs, it refers to people who have never worked or are likely to.

Paying welfare to keep them quiet is what allows me to have a reasonable middle class existance, its what allows anyone to do so. I don't have to like this people through

Jonno, it's pretty safe to say you have the most simplistic view of human interactions and social dynamics, probably only matched by the nutbag 'rational actor' pscyhology denying libertarians.

[pErvinalia]

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

But thats making the assumption that the right to do a job and earn money for it is 'free', you are basically paying for the privelege of living in a civilized country and going to work.

I've got no idea what that sentence means.

It means living in a decent country is a privelege and needs to be paid for, nothing is free including earning a living

Where did I say anything that even resembles that?

[pErvinalia]

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything.

No it doesn't. Not unless you're incapable of recognising any number between zero and infinity.

It means that if property is only held at the absolute whim of the state, then private property is non-existent.

This is a point many of us keep saying, in reality private-property is a state enabled concept (the right to it and the expectation of protection from stealing/vandalism etc). Libertarians are out there on the fringes thinking there is some inherent right to private property. Even if there was, there is no confidence in the value of that right without the state to back your right.

In Ireland, we have compulsory purchase orders, to divest private property. This is how we balance private property rights with the needs of the community.These orders are subject to a strict process and are subject to judicial review. This means that the state does not have control over private assets.

Other countries are not necessarily like this.

Well I think both the US and Australia are exactly like this. I would be pretty surprised if Canada and the UK weren't similar.

Where assets can be arbitrarily removed from private hands, then there is no such thing as private property.

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

Indeed. But the point is that there is somewhat of a contract around these matters. We should have a measure of certainty as to what taxes will be applied and when. This allows you to make commitments and save. If the government decudes to levy further taxes on already taxed money, I might as well spend every penny I earn on fripperies like cocaine and hookers. At least that way, I'd benefit from my money.

The money you earn gets taxed multiple times before it gets to your hands, and it gets taxed in the bank and then it gets taxed again as the bank spends it.

But as regards property, it depends on what your view of the state is. Is the state sovereign or the people.

In the UK, it is the state, which is why the crown prerogative still exists, and is wielded by the Department of Defence amongst others. Crown prerogative is not subject to judicial oversight. This is I some people whose lands were appropriated by the military were never compensated.

This cannot happen in Ireland, where the state is not sovereign.

Fair enough. I'm almost certain that in the US and Australia it is the same (i.e. you HAVE to be adequately compensated for land acquisitions).

Neither can the state imprison people here indefinitely without trial. The government in the USA is doing this, and the government in Britain has attempted to do this on several occasions over the last few years. It has only been prevented from doing so by the EU.

Yep, worrying trends in the UK and US. Both are very ideologically driven (in this case, neoconservatism). I'm glad to hear Ireland is not going the route of the UK.

[Cormac]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

So some lobbyists can be paid and some can't?

I note that your position is that inheritance and "power games" are not real work.

What is a "power game"?

Buying votes. Using your economic might to bully and take advantage of those with less economic might.

What is "real work"?

Well, as I said, doing nothing is not real work. Investing is another issue, and to be honest, i'm not entirely sure on what my ultimate views on it are. investment in tangible goods is certainly different and, IMO, of more value than investment in financial instruments.

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

Sorry. Can we keep this discussion focussed on the normal cases, and not the rare exceptions like Paris Hilton. Making generally applicable laws based on rare exceptions is a bad idea.

Well, i'm more concerned with vast sums of unearnt wealth. I'm not at all concerned with a modest plumber wanting to pass money on to his kids.

I note also that your assumption here is that the assets in question do not belong to the plumber, but to the state.

The state is what underwrites any asset. Ultimately everything belongs to the state.

Regarding the tax paid - it would have been the tax levied during his working life, as levied by the state.

Yes, but you can have a situation where little tax is paid in life and a large inheritance tax is paid or an equivalent large amount of working tax is paid and a small (or no) amount of inheritance tax is paid. Your analysis is too simplistic to discuss in depth.

The principles are simple. The plumber is illustrative because your rules will have a massively disproportionate impact on people like him. The likes of Paris Hilton are very rare exceptions.

To get a clear picture of what you propose it is necessary to apply your proposals to average cases.

In doing so, we have established that you believe:

1. The state is sovereign, and not the people.
2. That there is no such thing as private property, and that all property belongs to the state.

I struggle to see why I would study harder,
work harder, longer hours, in a more stressful job, seeing alot less of my wife and children, if the state can, at a whim, take away assets that I acquired with post-taxed income.

Someone had to do more senior jobs, and they come with these features. Without them, things fall apart.

So, what is the motivating factor in your ideal regime of enforced serfdom?

[Beatsong]

As for inheritance - going back to the hard working plumber example. Every penny that he earned through his working life was taxed. He wants to give his children a better start than he had experienced. As this money was already taxed, why should he not be able to transfer it to his children unencumbered?

This is a question that often comes up in relation to inheritence. The problem is that you're avoiding the issue - that the massive effect of inheritence disproves, or at least provides a huge exception to, the idea of work as reward for labour - by shifting the focus back from the person who has inherited the wealth to the person who gave it to them. (You also seem to want to put a particular emotional spin on the whole question by using the good honest hardworking everyday bloke plumber as your example, rather than a banker, landowner or someone who just inherited the wealth themselves from someone who inherited it from someone how inherited it - but ignoring that for the moment...)

You're quite right. Joe the plumber works hard for his money, pays his taxes and has the right to use the rest as he sees fit, including giving it to others if he wants.

The problem is that once he has done so, and the money belongs to those others, your whole argument becomes irrelevant. THEY didn't work for it, did they? So noone can claim that the reason THEY should be able to hold and use that money unencumbered is because it is their reward for labour. (Unless perhaps you count having to put up with your parents as labour, which might be a valid point ). Similarly, all your quaint homely descriptions of the admirable work ethic of their father, grandfather or great grandfather mean jack shit because it's not their posession of the money that we're talking about.

At the moment somebody inherits wealth, they gain income through no work whatsoever. To the extent that they continue to hold that wealth and it accrues, it remains unconnected with anything to do with work. The fact that the wealth used to belong to somebody where it was connected with work is irrelevant to what attitude we should hold to it being a "right" of the person who holds it now.

Now I'm not (yet, anyway) advocating any specific policy in relation to this. I'm only pointing out the weakness in the argument that property rights have their moral basis in property as reward for labour. That is a partial truth, but not an absolute one. And anybody who truly believes in it and wants to see it in practice, should be willing to explore all the possibilities of a mixed economy to do so, rather than putting absolute faith in a pure market-based economy that often delivers (via inheritence) the precise opposite of what they are advocating: property as reward for nothing, and vastly different amounts and of work required to reach the same economic goal, depending where on the racetrack you were arbitrarily placed at birth.

[MrJonno]

Compulsory purchase in the UK requires compensaton for the owner at a rate that they would get if they were to sell at the current time (its not neccesary the same as market value).

It's not a right its the law .

Of course when it comes to war mot laws and rights tend to go out of the window anyway

[Cormac]

As for inheritance - going back to the hard working plumber example. Every penny that he earned through his working life was taxed. He wants to give his children a better start than he had experienced. As this money was already taxed, why should he not be able to transfer it to his children unencumbered?

This is a question that often comes up in relation to inheritence. The problem is that you're avoiding the issue - that the massive effect of inheritence disproves, or at least provides a huge exception to, the idea of work as reward for labour - by shifting the focus back from the person who has inherited the wealth to the person who gave it to them. (You also seem to want to put a particular emotional spin on the whole question by using the good honest hardworking everyday bloke plumber as your example, rather than a banker, landowner or someone who just inherited the wealth themselves from someone who inherited it from someone how inherited it - but ignoring that for the moment...)

You're quite right. Joe the plumber works hard for his money, pays his taxes and has the right to use the rest as he sees fit, including giving it to others if he wants.

The problem is that once he has done so, and the money belongs to those others, your whole argument becomes irrelevant. THEY didn't work for it, did they? So noone can claim that the reason THEY should be able to hold and use that money unencumbered is because it is their reward for labour. (Unless perhaps you count having to put up with your parents as labour, which might be a valid point ). Similarly, all your quaint homely descriptions of the admirable work ethic of their father, grandfather or great grandfather mean jack shit because it's not their posession of the money that we're talking about.

At the moment somebody inherits wealth, they gain income through no work whatsoever. To the extent that they continue to hold that wealth and it accrues, it remains unconnected with anything to do with work. The fact that the wealth used to belong to somebody where it was connected with work is irrelevant to what attitude we should hold to it being a "right" of the person who holds it now.

Now I'm not (yet, anyway) advocating any specific policy in relation to this. I'm only pointing out the weakness in the argument that property rights have their moral basis in property as reward for labour. That is a partial truth, but not an absolute one. And anybody who truly believes in it and wants to see it in practice, should be willing to explore all the possibilities of a mixed economy to do so, rather than putting absolute faith in a pure market-based economy that often delivers (via inheritence) the precise opposite of what they are advocating: property as reward for nothing, and vastly different amounts and of work required to reach the same economic goal, depending where on the racetrack you were arbitrarily placed at birth.

Where does the notion that income can only morally result from "labour"?

I see no reason for this at all.

Your proposal is equally weak, but far more ideologically driven.

I also think that there is a difference between me leaving money to my children, and me giving it to someone unrelated to me (who doesn't particularly need charitable help).

Your reference to "bankers" and so on is even more emotive, and far less coherent.