Another attack in France

[vivalarevolución]

Good lord. This has become all too frequent.

[Wodan]

We will just have to get used to this. Sounds terrible but that is the price you pay for living in never before seen wealth and freedom and you want to stay open and liberal.

There are hundreds of millions of people who either want to take away what we have or destroy it.

[adhoc]

#notalltrucks #enginesofpeace

[andrewjoy]

We will just have to get used to this. Sounds terrible but that is the price you pay for living in never before seen wealth and freedom and you want to stay open and liberal.

There are hundreds of millions of people who either want to take away what we have or destroy it.

The world today as a whole is inherently less violent, it appears worse as media is instant nowadays.

[fohat]

The world today as a whole is inherently less violent, it appears worse as media is instant nowadays.

It is almost as if the most (in their own minds, anyway) "religious" group in the world, most intent on seeing their particular visions played out, have reached all the way around to take in nihilism as their alternate evil conjoined twin.

[seebart]

The solution to stopping these attacks is not aerial bombardment in the middle east but rather several programms are needed to get these young men away from the reach of IS who "motivate" them to carry out these killings, they are very often initially approached online. That's where the brainwashing starts...

[vivalarevolución]

The solution to stopping these attacks is not aerial bombardment in the middle east but rather several programms are needed to get these young men away from the reach of IS who "motivate" them to carry out these killings, they are very often initially approached online. That's where the brainwashing starts...

It is ultimately a war of the ideas that are impregnated into the minds of impressionable young men, and what actions that they carry out with those ideas.

An endless trade of violence for violence is not a solution. These aren't the good old days when the sides were distinct and uniformed, and everyone would lay down their guys when the treaty was signed.

[seebart]

Right and that's why many often speak of a new kind of war, this also calls for new approaches to solutions. The cold war era is long over. The internet is a mighty tool for spreading these "ideas".

[ohaimark]

I've compared terrorist groups to gangs in the inner cities of the United States.

Terrorist organizations give people, both from poor and well-to-do families, meaning, stability, and a sense of belonging. Regular living often fails to provide those things, nor are those who can teach ways to find one's own path readily available.

Unfortunately, people in general (the U.S. and abroad) fail to understand the reasons why people join violent organizations. Many of the people who are targets of terrorism are faithful supporters of organizations that provide the same things as terrorist organizations, less some of the violence, which furthers the confusion.

Cultural modification via well staffed (read: no assholes as teachers) educational programs would be the first step. The second step would be instituting programs to help people find their own cause and center, as opposed to looking externally and losing oneself in an organization.

I think the root cause of violence in these situations is a lack of resources. When the landscape or political climate doesn't provide enough sustenance for a decent amount of the populace to focus on things other than subsistence, ignorance, violence, and religion tend to swell as instinctual/emotional responses take over. Group dynamics amplify the irrationality into something murderous, stubborn, and invasive.

When you consider the massive inequality created by upper class control of their only valuable resource, oil, it creates further impetus for violence. The "West" funds the wealthy upper class, which gives them greater power over the rest of the populace. The poorer classes, perhaps rightly so, see all of that international money as a means of oppression. Leaders and twisted opportunists play on that, acting as double agents. They can incite the populace against "Western oppression" and continue rolling in the funds we give them.

Regardless of whether I'm right about all this or not (I've been wrong before), things are in a sorry state over there. Hopefully it will get worked out without regular conflicts, refugee crises, and exterminations. People are ignorant at home and overseas, so I'm not too hopeful.

[vivalarevolución]

You make some valid and thoughtful points, although overgeneralized in places, but that is difficult to avoid on a message board, this is not an academic forum.

While I can understand the similarities between inner city gangs and terrorist organizations, our gangs tend to not engage in premeditated mass killings of civilians. The lone wolf mass killer is an all too common occurrence in the US. I have read that the psychological profile among mass killers and terrorists are very similar, with a strong sense of social disconnection from their immediate community or culture and devaluation of human life to the point that people are objects to to eliminate, like scoring points in a video game.

The thing is, if a killer identifies as part of a group demonized by a society (for example our demonization of Muslims in the USA, despite the fact that only 2 of the 400 mass killings the USA during a one-year period were motivated by twisted Islamic beliefs), they are being subject to the same labeling, dehumanization, and objectification as they are are committing against others. So the cycle continues.

I am not saying this is any sort of justification for mass killing, but it is easy to understand how a person can become angry and feel like they need to lash out or fight back.

[fohat]

Terrorist organizations give people, both from poor and well-to-do families, meaning, stability, and a sense of belonging.

I think the root cause of violence in these situations is a lack of resources. When the landscape or political climate doesn't provide enough sustenance for a decent amount of the populace to focus on things other than subsistence, ignorance, violence, and religion tend to swell as instinctual/emotional responses take over.

things are in a sorry state over there.

People are ignorant at home and overseas, so I'm not too hopeful.

What "people" are ignorant of is the fact that the majority of the wealth of the world has been siphoned off and hoarded by an infinitesimal group, leaving next to nothing for literally billions to survive on.

But while most even slightly socially conscious people have a basic belief and understanding that this is, and has been, happening since the beginning of civilization, they compartmentalize it and dismiss it as "the way of the world" and something that cannot be changed.

In fact, it could easily be changed if it was the will of the people in a valid way, that is, it they used their power and their votes to change it. And they better do so, and quickly, because modern technologies, rather than being an equalizing force, have simply become the most powerful tool yet developed for the "elites" to consummate their agenda.

Until that unconscionable state is remedied, there will be massive discord all over the world.

[ohaimark]

I agree that steps must be taken to balance wealth. Like I've said in posts elsewhere, I think the first step is to ban or tax almost all of inheritance.

I'm very much in agreement with Carnegie in that regard, though many of his other principles were questionable.

[fohat]

I agree that steps must be taken to balance wealth. Like I've said in posts elsewhere, I think the first step is to ban or tax almost all of inheritance.

I'm very much in agreement with Carnegie in that regard, though many of his other principles were questionable.

Capital gains and inheritance need to be taxed at the highest rates and not the lowest.

But for any reform to happen, real political power must be taken back by the people themselves.

[ohaimark]

Capital gains should be taxed at a rate that's congruous with whatever other taxes exist, imo. I don't really care what wealth people accumulate in a single lifetime. I have bigger issues with "dynasties" that form around names and fortunes.

I agree that people need to take back political power; on the other hand, they should also educate themselves on political issues instead of being sheeple. When will *that* happen?

[chuckdee]

Capital gains should be taxed at a rate that's congruous with whatever other taxes exist, imo. I don't really care what wealth people accumulate in a single lifetime. I have bigger issues with "dynasties" that form around names and fortunes.

I agree that people need to take back political power; on the other hand, they should also educate themselves on political issues instead of being sheeple. When will *that* happen?

So people shouldn't be able to pass down an inheritance to their children? And the government should be the singular beneficiary of estates? And what about living inheritors and their minority children if they happen to die?

I think the issue is more nuanced than banning inheritance- taxing at a higher rate, there could be a discussion around, though I don't think that the level of wealth should be a differentiating concern. But then again, around taxation, I think it should be a Flat tax or a usage tax, personally.

[vivalarevolución]

How did we evolve from terrorism to taxation?

Oh wait, this is offtopic-thority.

[ohaimark]

So people shouldn't be able to pass down an inheritance to their children?

Exactly.

And the government should be the singular beneficiary of estates?

Definitely not. The money and resources would be funneled through the government into a tax-return like check that people get at the end of the year. "The DEATH RETURN." Split up the wealth amongst the entire populace to keep it fair.

And what about living inheritors and their minority children if they happen to die?

If the wife is alive, she gets it. When the wife dies, the kids don't get it. If the kids are underage, a guardian may act in the parents' stead to use the money for the kids' education and daily life. When the kids reach majority, the money would be taken.

But then again, around taxation, I think it should be a Flat tax or a usage tax, personally.

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to that, but a certain cutoff point would need to be determined to avoid driving people into the poverty line. And the budget would need to be balanced.

Oh wait, this is offtopic-thority.

[chuckdee]

How did we evolve from terrorism to taxation?

Oh wait, this is offtopic-thority.

Yeah... sorry about that. I realized what the topic was after I'd answered. But... yeah, that's funny! So I won't respond to the queries... wanna make a new thread?

[vivalarevolución]

Not being to pass down any of your inheritance to your children is an awful idea. you are basically saying that my parents would not be able to give their house to their children if they want it or perhaps money saved up for a grandchildren's education. Parents work their whole lives for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. Giving it all to some government entity to piss away for whatever government program is not a good use of an entire inheritance.

[fohat]

Not being to pass down any of your inheritance to your children is an awful idea. you are basically saying that my parents would not be able to give their house to their children if they want it or perhaps money saved up for a grandchildren's education. Parents work their whole lives for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. Giving it all to some government entity to piss away for whatever government program is not a good use of an entire inheritance.

Usual and customary amounts are exempt. Currently, if I remember correctly, "inheritance taxes" begin at $1.75M and don't include things like houses.

And, of course, as Andrew Carnegie pointed out, the honorable thing to do is to disburse your riches, as you see fit, before you die. Yes, they pay taxes on it as "income" then, which is entirely appropriate.

[ohaimark]

I'd be happy with it if children had first dibs on purchasing the house. I'm also not opposed to a college fund, as college ain't cheap.

I am, however, diametrically opposed to giving people wealth on the basis of blood and not personal achievement. It reeks of aristocratic government and prehistoric tradition.

A house represents a substantial inequality. It can be sold or used; the money that isn't spent as a result of its acquisition can be used to multiply one's personal fortune above what would have been possible on one's own merit.

Also, as I said, the government shouldn't keep the wealth. It should be distributed to the populace somehow. It is a question of "good use," it's a question of fairness. Even if every citizen receives $0.50 at the end of the year, it prevents one individual from gaining several million dollars or more.

[fohat]

government shouldn't keep the wealth. It should be distributed to the populace somehow.

There is a fundamental disconnect in the USA today.

Some of us take "We the People" seriously and understand that "we" ARE "the government" and that "the government" IS us.

Others strive to drive a wedge between "the government" and "the people" and make it - us vs them vs something else.

[ohaimark]

In an ideal world that would be true.

In reality, any institution that the people create will take on a life of its own. We can do a pretty good job of making it an extension of our will, but it will never be a perfect extension.

That's not terribly related to my point, though. To phrase it how you wanted it (in a tongue in cheek way):

We the people should tell the people that they should take the money and liquidated things from recently deceased people and give it back to all of us instead of giving it to inheritors or the organization that the people run to tell other people what should happen.

[fohat]

To phrase it how you wanted it (in a tongue in cheek way):

I resent people changing the words that I say and then offering them back to me.

I said what I wanted to say. Your words are your own, not mine.

[chuckdee]

I'd be happy with it if children had first dibs on purchasing the house. I'm also not opposed to a college fund, as college ain't cheap.

I am, however, diametrically opposed to giving people wealth on the basis of blood and not personal achievement. It reeks of aristocratic government and prehistoric tradition.

A house represents a substantial inequality. It can be sold or used; the money that isn't spent as a result of its acquisition can be used to multiply one's personal fortune above what would have been possible on one's own merit.

Also, as I said, the government shouldn't keep the wealth. It should be distributed to the populace somehow. It is a question of "good use," it's a question of fairness. Even if every citizen receives $0.50 at the end of the year, it prevents one individual from gaining several million dollars or more.

Why should anyone else be entitled to what someone else makes? That sounds like robbery to me. I work so I can pass it down to my children, and give them a leg up- it's part of what drives me. And what about an exorbitant amount of life insurance? If I take out a 5 million dollar life insurance policy, and die, isn't that pretty much the same as leaving money for the children? I just don't get why someone who worked, and managed their money and their savings well, would be penalized by not being allowed to leave money to their descendants. Even taxation on it seems like double jeopardy, unless it was not taxed to begin with. Earnings should be taxed once, and only once.

[ohaimark]

I think it's ultimately a question of values. I value individual merit above all else, even the concept of hereditary inheritance. Your children or benefactors did nothing society would pay an hourly rate for. Unless you can figure out an hourly rate for love and companionship, that is.

Why should anyone else be entitled to what someone else makes?

You're right that it would be an entitlement program. It may be a lesser evil than the inequality that results from inheritance.

I'd argue that blood/friendship doesn't qualify one to get money that they didn't earn, especially when it fosters inequality. Thus the only acceptable alternatives I see are A) destroying the assets, which would be wasteful or B) distributing the assets to everyone in an equitable manner, even if those people did nothing to earn the money.

That sounds like robbery to me.

I can't really argue that point because I don't know what it's referring to. Am I robbing a dead person? Am I robbing his benefactors?

I work so I can pass it down to my children, and give them a leg up - it's part of what drives me.

You're already giving them a leg up by clothing them, feeding them, and helping them in whatever ways you can before they become adults. Perhaps even helping them through college. Many kids barely get the basics.

I see your point, though. You love them. You want them to do well. Assuming you're a millionaire, you leave them your fortune. Because money begets money, you've suddenly given them an insurmountable leg up. You've put them above a large majority of the population. They could squander the fortune, but it's more likely that the financial advisers they hire will continue to multiply that fortune, sending it on to the next generation in some way. The cycle would continue.

And what about an exorbitant amount of life insurance? If I take out a 5 million dollar life insurance policy, and die, isn't that pretty much the same as leaving money for the children?

Yes, and it would be treated in the same manner as the other money (disbursed by a guardian) until the children reached their majority.

I just don't get why someone who worked, and managed their money and their savings well, would be penalized by not being allowed to leave money to their descendants.

Your descendants would still get a fractional amount of it, just as they would get a fractional amount of what every other dead person contributed to the pot. It's more like averaging inheritance than it is abolishing it, I suppose.

Even taxation on it seems like double jeopardy, unless it was not taxed to begin with. Earnings should be taxed once, and only once.

I don't really think of it as a tax. Taxes go to programs that either provide services or give some things to specific groups of people. This would go to everyone -- I think it qualifies as direct and fair redistribution of wealth.

[webwit]

Values like stealing from the dead to pay for the presidents' 10k/month hairdresser.

[Chyros]

I'm not sure I see the point in raising inheritance tax. I barely see the point of that tax to begin with. In fact it feels almost like graverobbery Oo .

Why not just make it simple. People who make more money, pay more. Not the current system in the USA where you pay less if you're a giant company, and where you can set yourself any bonus and salary you want. Or like here in the UK (corporate tax was lowered from 20% to 15% or something recently, you can thank the biggest arsehole in the world, the right honourable chancellor of the exchequer, for that one).

[vivalarevolución]

I'm not sure I see the point in raising inheritance tax. I barely see the point of that tax to begin with. In fact it feels almost like graverobbery Oo .

Why not just make it simple. People who make more money, pay more. Not the current system in the USA where you pay less if you're a giant company, and where you can set yourself any bonus and salary you want. Or like here in the UK (corporate tax was lowered from 20% to 15% or something recently, you can thank the biggest arsehole in the world, the right honourable chancellor of the exchequer, for that one).

That's too logical, then the rich could not weazel their way out of paying taxes.

[ohaimark]

Values like stealing from the dead to pay for the presidents' 10k/month hairdresser.

The goal would be for that to not happen with the funds. In practice, you're probably right.