CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
That explains why whites were against slavery, until now I just assumed they did it for the lolz, not expecting slavery to actually end.
The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
H.P. Lovecraft
Active Member
John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison were just a prank, man.
Serjeant Grumbles
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2005
- 4,385
- 2,878
- 113
Well, first of all, I'm surprised you wouldn't say those white abolitionists were all just virtue-signalling.
It is a false equivalence to equate those railing against oppression that doesn't personally affect them with those railing against a policy which inconveniences the well-to-do, because they believe it does affect them.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Only a moron would be surprised at that and I don't consider you a moron, so that's kind of surprising.
It's false to claim that those railing against inheritance tax believe it affects them. What proof do you have that they think that?
Serjeant Grumbles
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2005
- 4,385
- 2,878
- 113
I'm not saying everyone who opposes it believes it affects them. The wealthy people who oppose it do so because they know it affects them. However, tagradh said that the loudest opposition to it, at least in the UK, comes from people who aren't affected by it. It's his claim, not mine, but you chose to run with it. You brought up the analogy of opposition to slavery, so as to imply that those particular people are opposed to the inheritance tax out of similar humanitarian impulses, which is an absurd comparison to make.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
No I used that analogy to be as hyperbolic as possible in order to mock his retarded mentality which implied that people only oppose things that directly affect them or that people should only oppose things that directly affect them.
I thought it was pretty clear I was trying to be humorous. H.P. got it.
I thought it was pretty clear I was trying to be humorous. H.P. got it.
rms
Active Member
that's kind of the issue. white women and blacks get more degrees and go to post-grad than white men but earnings are down (and wealth never increases, that separation is key to this goalpost moving critique). I imagine it's because blacks love soft-science humanities ala sociology
UB is beloved to the south/east asians but yeah, maybe 45% white men. 45~% asian men (indians to chinese/japanese/koreans) and maybe 5% women (all races) and the rest are black men. but the ones i've chatted with are first generation african/studying abroad type -- not citizens.
everywhere, basically. you have South-Asians (indians), SE Asians (Vietnam etc), Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and the Middle East
from memory, it's quite low for the super wealthy comparative to the ~250k range
J.
Old Fart
rms
Active Member
except rich people consistently get away with taxation their entire life. Mitt Romney paid like 8% taxation as a bajillionaire and I paid 25% as a Soldier. that's bullshit if i've ever seen it
and the interesting thing is that early 20th century insanely wealthy elites wish that all their income could be given away instead of their children, they thought it cancerous for their children and all that
and the interesting thing is that early 20th century insanely wealthy elites wish that all their income could be given away instead of their children, they thought it cancerous for their children and all that
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,745
- 1,442
- 113
if a rich guy has a billion dollars and dies, i don't deserve his money, nor do poor people, nor does the government. whoever he wrote in his will deserves the money.
so what if his kids did not work for it, i sure didn't, and the poor and the government sure as hell didn't. The point is it was his money and thus his to give away to whom he pleases.
so what if his kids did not work for it, i sure didn't, and the poor and the government sure as hell didn't. The point is it was his money and thus his to give away to whom he pleases.
rms
Active Member
there's an argument poor people do deserve part of the wealthy's money, because they usually exploit if not abuse the poor to attain that money. especially if we're talking 20th century and before
the black argument is an insinuation that a lot of this wealth is from land grants from the retrievals from blacks/slaves as well as profits from slaves/other unequal labor practices in our past
the black argument is an insinuation that a lot of this wealth is from land grants from the retrievals from blacks/slaves as well as profits from slaves/other unequal labor practices in our past
Last edited:
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Isn't roughly half of America unemployed? Hard to see how they were exploited at home watching Dr. Phil.
Edit: Wait it's nowhere near half my bad.
Edit: Wait it's nowhere near half my bad.
Dak
mentat
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Einherjar86
Active Member
Think about how much of that percentage is either still in high school, or in college and a) taking money from their parents, or b) taking out student loans. Without getting into a discussion about personal responsibility and the student loan bubble, it's fair to say that plenty of them aren't actively avoiding work or "unemployed." Unemployment and labor participation are different things.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Even with my GI Bill I was working practically the entire time I was in school, even up to 30 hours a week at one point. I would say subsisting on parental money or student loans is "actively avoiding work" and definitely unemployed (as in not employed and able bodied, not the BLS definition of "unemployment").
Edit: Right now the LFPR for 25-54 year olds ("prime working years") is ~78% which many think is fine. The problem is that a total LFPR of the low 60s, with all these different entitlements filling the income gap, is unsustainable long term. We are practically at the point where 1 person supports 2 people economically - which isn't even the real case when we take into account the massive amounts of public and private debt.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
I have to disagree. Unemployment has to be measured by those who file for unemployment - otherwise you're applying a term with negative financial connotations to a group of people who aren't necessarily in financial trouble and aren't necessarily a drain on the economy. Unemployment isn't a generic catch-all for people who aren't working.
Dak
mentat
I think the negative implications are inherent in the current "mixed economy" structure. Obviously there are a select group of people that are neither on the dole nor working/seeking work, but I would (with no evidence at hand) assert that this group is very likely quite small.
