Jump to content

The Kids (Aren't) Alright - World Happiness Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

But it's also not an embarrassment or shameful to be born at the top (or more appropriately for us, the middle of the mountain) and to strive to keep your family and their generations to keep from falling to the bottom, to the best of your ability.

I agree - they didn't do anything wrong in being born on third base.  They just need to be aware of what a privilege and advantage that is.  And to do good with it.  

Man, the older I get, the simpler that truth gets.  Just do good.  When you can, how you can, for whoever you can.  It's just so damned important.  And that requires a big dose of humility.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Except, apparently, some performative faux humility by pretending privilege they give their kids is unfair. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

It isn't performative faux humility (or it shouldn't be).  It should be real.  Be humble.  Be kind.  Use what you have been given to do good.  Be aware of other people's situations, which are often no more their fault than your situation (and advantage) is your fault.  Have some empathy, which goes hand-in-hand with humility.

DON'T be the guy born on third base who brags about how he hit a triple, making fun of all of those people stuck standing at the plate without even a bat.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - they didn't do anything wrong in being born on third base.  They just need to be aware of what a privilege and advantage that is.  And to do good with it.  
Man, the older I get, the simpler that truth gets.  Just do good.  When you can, how you can, for whoever you can.  It's just so damned important.  And that requires a big dose of humility.

This is a huge point imo and one I stress as much as I can. My kiddo has lots of advantage others don’t, she’s attractive (fuck off perverts), she’s smart, she’s white, and she has parents that take an interest, stay engaged, and have some level of means to help her out. And because to whom much is given much is expected so make sure you don’t squander your luck. She also has near debilitating adhd that she has to deal with and whatever she ultimately achieves in life she will have to earn because we don’t have that kind of means to bequeath to her. But she knows I don’t want to ever see any gloating, arrogance, or acting like you are better than anyone because you were lucky. But also don’t apologize or feel guilty about it despite what cultural media tries to tell you. Just be aware, be smart, be humble, be grateful, and helpful to others.

And honestly I don’t feel guilty for trying to help her. I’ll pay for college, she’ll always have a place to live with me if she needs it, I have two rental houses I’ll never sell and she will inherit and knows to never sell - live in them or collect rent, your choice but never sell - and I’m teaching her the power of compound interest in investing starting as a teenager. But it absolutely comes with the message that just because you were born on 2nd base, I don’t ever want to see you acting like it’s because you think you actually hit a double.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Except, apparently, some performative faux humility by pretending privilege they give their kids is unfair. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

Maybe you are just cynical.

I was brought up with a Wesleyan background and I while I don't think Briskets family's faith is Wesleyan I believe it pushes a social gospel.

If you come from a religious background like this being taught to be "class conscious", particularly if you are well-to-do is pretty standard.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


This is a huge point imo and one I stress as much as I can. My kiddo has lots of advantage others don’t, she’s attractive (fuck off perverts), she’s smart, she’s white, and she has parents that take an interest, stay engaged, and have some level of means to help her out. And because to whom much is given much is expected so make sure you don’t squander your luck. She also has near debilitating adhd that she has to deal with and whatever she ultimately achieves in life she will have to earn because we don’t have that kind of means to bequeath to her. But she knows I don’t want to ever see any gloating, arrogance, or acting like you are better than anyone because you were lucky. But also don’t apologize or feel guilty about it despite what cultural media tries to tell you. Just be aware, be smart, be humble, be grateful, and helpful to others.

And honestly I don’t feel guilty for trying to help her. I’ll pay for college, she’ll always have a place to live with me if she needs it, I have two rental houses I’ll never sell and she will inherit and knows to never sell - live in them or collect rent, your choice but never sell - and I’m teaching her the power of compound interest in investing starting as a teenager. But it absolutely comes with the message that just because you were born on 2nd base, I don’t ever want to see you acting like it’s because you think you actually hit a double.

1000% this. Don’t gloat and be gross and tacky about it, but don’t apologize for it either. It’s an honor to have been born on second base. At the same time it’s not a dishonor to be poor. Both can be true at the same time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't just tell you kids to be nice and humble.  They have to be put into situations when they've been humbled.  Sports does this.  Rigorous academics.  Physical exertion.  I think BJJ is one of the best teachers out there.  My 18yr old son has packed on almost 20+ lbs of muscle this year as he prepares for college and the ROTC.  He rolls now quite a bit and he got choked THE FUCK OUT by this dainty little purple belt chick that was maybe 100lbs.  My God it was glorious.  I even warned him. 

Dude, she's slippery. 

I got this dad. 

Look at how small she is. 

LOL.....

There are obviously exceptions to everything, but guys that train to fight/roll and some of the most chill, down to earth guys you'll ever meet.  There's no Cobra Kai bullshit.  You spend hours of your day getting rag-dolled and choked repeatedly you quickly gain a healthy measure of respect for violence.  They sometimes come over.  To a kid, they are solid.  respectful.  Eager to share what they know.  Supportive.  They've all been white belts.  They know what it's like.  

The actor Tom Hardy went up a few notches in my book for gaining his purple belt and winning tournaments and telling nobody.  He basically went in anonymous and strangled some pretty damn good savages from across the globe.  He could be a cushy actor and "act" the part, but he put himself into the cauldron and he's earning respect

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

1000% this. Don’t gloat and be gross and tacky about it, but don’t apologize for it either. It’s an honor to have been born on second base. At the same time it’s not a dishonor to be poor. Both can be true at the same time.

Just do hard shit.  Then you won't be so worried about everyone else's shit because you're too focused on your own

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It isn't performative faux humility (or it shouldn't be).  It should be real.  Be humble.  Be kind.  Use what you have been given to do good.  Be aware of other people's situations, which are often no more their fault than your situation (and advantage) is your fault.  Have some empathy, which goes hand-in-hand with humility.

DON'T be the guy born on third base who brags about how he hit a triple, making fun of all of those people stuck standing at the plate without even a bat.

I always tell CHIEF Jr. "always remember, you were born on third base, you didn't hit a triple." Our family has been blessed with making some good decisions, and that includes decisions that you have made. That doesn't mean you haven't had struggles along the way, as we have. But we have been helped financially from parents, friends, and relatives over the years, now we are in a position to be that help. 

My niece is in the opposite boat. She can't really count on her parents to help, or her in-laws. Not because they don't want to, but are not in a position financially. My son is part of their safety net. He has helped with utility deposits, diapers, formula, a garage door opener. These were never asked of him, he just bought them and took them over on his own. You have to raise them unselfishly, and to be unselfish and help others.

After the Big Freeze of 2021, we had the Big Thaw. College courses were all online at the time. He and 2-3 friends pulled carpet, sheetrock, and furniture for about two weeks on over 20 houses for free. I was proud of him. It let me know I raised him right.

CHIEF 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

My 18yr old son has packed on almost 20+ lbs of muscle this year as he prepares for college and the ROTC. 

To be fair, regarding ROTC, there isn't a need to physically prepare for it if you are coming from a high school athletic background. Compared to varsity sports, it's a cake walk. The real challenge is academic, mental and time management.

Loading up on courses in the Fall/Spring because Summers are going to be dedicated to military training which doesn't leave a lot of room for Summer school. Which means you will be taking 5 courses a semester, plus military science, leadership labs and morning PT.

Time management is the biggest challenge, the physical stuff is an after thought. A typical day would be physical training at 6 AM, classes in the morning/noon, lab work in the afternoon (land nav training or some shit) which leaves your evenings for studying.

Sitting down and studying calculus II followed by some exciting reading about Spanish exploration in the Americas after a long ass day while you are being tempted to go party with friends or Netflix and chill with a girl is hard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, F250 said:

To be fair, regarding ROTC, there isn't a need to physically prepare for it if you are coming from a high school athletic background. Compared to varsity sports, it's a cake walk. The real challenge is academic, mental and time management.

Loading up on courses in the Fall/Spring because Summers are going to be dedicated to military training which doesn't leave a lot of room for Summer school. Which means you will be taking 5 courses a semester, plus military science, leadership labs and morning PT.

Time management is the biggest challenge, the physical stuff is an after thought. A typical day would be physical training at 6 AM, classes in the morning/noon, lab work in the afternoon (land nav training or some shit) which leaves your evenings for studying.

Sitting down and studying calculus II followed by some exciting reading about Spanish exploration in the Americas after a long ass day while you are being tempted to go party with friends or Netflix and chill with a girl is hard.

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

You can't just tell you kids to be nice and humble.  They have to be put into situations when they've been humbled.  Sports does this.  Rigorous academics.  Physical exertion.  I think BJJ is one of the best teachers out there.  My 18yr old son has packed on almost 20+ lbs of muscle this year as he prepares for college and the ROTC.  He rolls now quite a bit and he got choked THE FUCK OUT by this dainty little purple belt chick that was maybe 100lbs.  My God it was glorious.  I even warned him. 

Dude, she's slippery. 

I got this dad. 

Look at how small she is. 

LOL.....

There are obviously exceptions to everything, but guys that train to fight/roll and some of the most chill, down to earth guys you'll ever meet.  There's no Cobra Kai bullshit.  You spend hours of your day getting rag-dolled and choked repeatedly you quickly gain a healthy measure of respect for violence.  They sometimes come over.  To a kid, they are solid.  respectful.  Eager to share what they know.  Supportive.  They've all been white belts.  They know what it's like.  

The actor Tom Hardy went up a few notches in my book for gaining his purple belt and winning tournaments and telling nobody.  He basically went in anonymous and strangled some pretty damn good savages from across the globe.  He could be a cushy actor and "act" the part, but he put himself into the cauldron and he's earning respect

BJJ is exceptional for confidence building. It gives people that would stand no chance in any real fight belief that they could hold their own. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, the Consultant from 'Office Space', "What if, and believe me this is a big hypothetical.....but what if in addition to participation awards and trophies and counseling...we had this rigor that our children had to go through called real life adulthood in America.  Would that be enough of a challenge or lessons in life?"  Because you know, 35% of American adults fucked everything up for them anyway?  Again, just a hypothetical.  

Having said that, I am reminded daily that my job is not to provide them with a happy childhood, it is to prepare them to be capable adults.  But goddamn if the people trying to fuck up their ability to live in a decent country aren't taking a single day off despite their remarkable level of stupidity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Individuals cannot close the income gap, but collectively we can help with government intervention.   There is no political will to do so.  

Agreed.

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  

The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 

The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.

Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Helobious said:

BJJ is exceptional for confidence building. It gives people that would stand no chance in any real fight belief that they could hold their own. 

BJJ is legit, I’m very much just getting to know it although I have some background in boxing as another combat sport.  You can train full speed and full strength.  It is a sport and like any combat sport it’s not designed for a “real fight.”  Plenty of things in BJJ are extremely useful in a self-defense scenario. And the experience I have training matches BabaYagas, cool and chill people who just like to train and share knowledge.
 

Anytime I hear about “winning” “real/street fights” my eyes roll in my head. There’s really not scenarios where you “win” a real fight and it’s not something non-criminal humans should be concerned with.  Self-defense is about ending a fight and getting in a better place and BJJ offers a lot of that, like how to get yourself off the ground when you don’t want to be there, how to place some aggressive asshole on the ground quick so you can leave, or how to get drunk Uncle Steve who has gotten out of hand in a place to rethink what he’s doing at the reunion. It gets you comfortable with contact and helps you not panic if things escalate. It’s not for continuing that scenario and “winning” the fight. These are the most likely scenarios of self-defense, not squaring up with some other trained fighter outside somewhere.
 

Self-defense is not about winning fights. If you get sucker punched and never see it coming you’re fucked no matter what you trained.  If you get jumped by several guys who want to stomp you, you’re fucked. If someone has a knife or gun, you’re most likely fucked. In those scenarios the best and only option is the nearest exit and space. 
 

If you’re the type of asshole who wants to get into and “win” real fights on the street, then you belong in jail and not the gym. Just get yourself some brass knuckles or a knife because the type of people you’ll be “fighting” don’t have any scruples. “Real fights”’are just bullshit. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.
The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  
The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 
The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.
Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

Going after inheritance is also wrong. Individuals who skimped and saved but then suddenly passed away likely didn’t give their children the advantages others had who relied on social security solely for their retirement.

Also if parents have kids with disabilities you are dooming them solely to the mercy of the state to manage it.

Efforts should be made to change the tax code and close the loopholes and shelters that are exploited.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, F250 said:

This was my first thought when watching that TED Talk. Galloway begins with the question "do you love your children?" After making the point that of course the audience loves their children he immediately transitions to the war on youth and starts discussing problems that primarily impact children of the middle and lower class.

The disconnect is that his audience is likely made up of the upper and upper-middle class who don’t give a fuck about other people's children, especially the children of the lower classes. Everyone is going to take care of their own and let the others be fodder as long as their own children thrive.

My point was I’m a kid 30 something person who needs to strongly influence other 30 something’s to do the right shit. Like raise their kids right, get involved in the community, get I no loved with positive influence etc. it’s not my job to raise your kids. It’s my job to hold you accountable for doing a shit job raising your kids. 

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

Individuals cannot close the income gap, but collectively we can help with government intervention.   There is no political will to do so.  

This. So much this. The collective accountability of government is how this is solved. 

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Agreed.

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  

The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 

The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.

Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

This just ain’t it. A general tax on assets over a certain amount (billionaire tax) is a better use of philosophical discussion time as it solves the universal problem of being too wealthy. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2024 at 10:20 AM, SydneyCarton said:

I'd like you to support that with an actual explanation and sources. In Texas costs for public college have soared because politics got invovled. Specifically at Texas the lack of adoption of certain curriculum and admission expansion meant a decrease in public funds. Is that what you mean by "government intervention?" Because that's not the vibe I got from your post. 

Instead of going down the list of interventions I think we can sum it up thusly. 

 

What are the 3 areas/industries where governments and polticians work the hardest to make things “affordable” for the average citizen?

Housing, healthcare, higher education. 

These are 3 industries/purchases that have easily outpaced inflation over the last few decades. Perhaps more than any other. (I dont feel like looking up sources right now)

I could list the most recent interventions in a couple of those areas that will obviously keep pushing prices up, but CR jumps in. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Going after inheritance is also wrong. Individuals who skimped and saved but then suddenly passed away likely didn’t give their children the advantages others had who relied on social security solely for their retirement.

Also if parents have kids with disabilities you are dooming them solely to the mercy of the state to manage it.

Efforts should be made to change the tax code and close the loopholes and shelters that are exploited.

Disagree, because those types to situations are relatively rare, and can be accounted for.  You can take into account what parents could be expected to spend on their children to get them to a point of self-sufficiency....and I'm not talking about bare minimums, because I'm assuming you're talking about people of substantial means.

That's why I used the term "excess" wealth.  

For example, let's say the parents die young....to make things easy, let's assume one child (age 12) and parents die in car crash...but somehow managed to accumulate $50m in net worth before dying.  What if, instead of inheriting the full $50m, they got say $5M.  At 3% interest...assuming they put everything into a savings account...that's $150,000 a year forever without touching the principle.  You don't think that's enough to get the kid set up?

Note:  Average return of a mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 has returned over 9%/year inclusive of the great depression.  So, 3% is way low.

3 minutes ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

So what's the "great motivator" for the kids?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So what's the "great motivator" for the kids?

Carrying on that legacy. It's not perfect. There are plenty of losers that inherit huge amounts but amount to nothing. But people that are smart enough and work hard enough to make something to pass on to their kids are more likely to have kids that have the same capabilities over time. Compounds 

 

The alternative of giving it to the collective. “Burning it” figuratively is so backward and communist honestly. Ridiculous. And I'll take your brushing off my kid's question as an admission you have none. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Howlin wolf said:

Carrying on that legacy. It's not perfect. There are plenty of losers that inherit huge amounts but amount to nothing. But people that are smart enough and work hard enough to make something to pass on to their kids are more likely to have kids that have the same capabilities over time. Compounds 

 

The alternative of giving it to the collective. “Burning it” figuratively is so backward and communist honestly. Ridiculous. And I'll take your brushing off my kid's question as an admission you have none. 

 

Maybe pick up a book and learn what communism is before making such an uninformed comment.

But perhaps reading isn't your strong suit since I literally said "I'm not suggesting burning assets"...but to casually toss aside an idea that worked for thousands of years in different parts of the world is astonishing.  You know what happens when we refuse to learn from history, right? 

Anyway, I didn't comment on your kids for 3 reasons...one, I don't give a shit, and two, it has nothing to do with the conversation, and three I seriously doubt you have generational wealth.  I know I don't.

These fine folks, many of whom have kids, have pledged to give most of their money away....how many of their children do you think will be "disadvantaged" because of it?  As opposed to the number of people who will benefit?  If that's "communism" then sign me up.

The Giving Pledge - Wikipedia

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Maybe pick up a book and learn what communism is before making such an uninformed comment.

Would you prefer collectivist? I'm not sure what else to call giving up most, or all, of your wealth to the state at death.  

 

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

to casually toss aside an idea that worked for thousands of years in different parts of the world is astonishing. 

What were the living standards for those thousands of years in those various tribal communities?

 

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

 

These fine folks, many of whom have kids, have pledged to give most of their money away....how many of their children do you think will be "disadvantaged" because of it?  As opposed to the number of people who will benefit?  If that's "communism" then sign me up.

The Giving Pledge - Wikipedia

These people are very welcome to do that. I would guess their kids are still getting substantial assets to make it through life. That's the thing. It shouldn't be up to the state to confiscate people’s wealth at death. 

11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Anyway, I didn't comment on your kids for 3 reasons...one, I don't give a shit, and two, it has nothing to do with the conversation, and three I seriously doubt you have generational wealth.  I know I don't.

My kids weren't mentioned. It was your lack of kids. Which is fine. Again a personal choice. But to be someone without kids, advocating for eliminating inheritance and population decline is a chef’s kiss. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Agreed.

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  

The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 

The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.

Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

This strikes me as the complete opposite of what America was built upon and stands for. You’ll get less political support for this than most anything else you can think of to solve this issue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DixonHur It is relatively rare? The national average of kids with LD’s is 15% of the student population. The issue is you might not be able to tell from afar.

In your example, you are now requiring the state or a trust to manage money for someone who might not be able to do so. The whole thing gets real complicated real quick. This injection of cash to the state doesn’t address the fundamental issue of how the disparity of wealth was created and exacerbated and without addressing the tax code, it does no good at all. Just makes some people feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it...that's exactly why I said it wasn't practical and would never happen.

I presented what I considered the ideal.  Just as Plato did with the Republic, the idea is to consider the ideal and then back into the workable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

It's an interesting concept. Thomas Jefferson floated the idea as a means for leveling the field to allow for the emergence of a natural aristocracy. It's probably the best way to allow for a meritocracy where the truly talented would thrive rather than those born on third base.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

This strikes me as the complete opposite of what America was built upon and stands for. You’ll get less political support for this than most anything else you can think of to solve this issue 

Eh, promogeniture was mostly rejected in the United States. Granted, this is specific to the first born male inheriting property but the idea of generational wealth being passed down was more of a British concept than an American one. Americans were trying to break from the feudal practices of Europe that lead to aristocratics or oligarchs.

The concept is very American.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

If that's "communism" then sign me up.

 

Yeah. This is our surprised face.  
 

I wouldn’t gaf about $$$ if it wasn’t based on what I’m providing for my kids.  Doing everything I can now to help them navigate the shit show that is tomorrow. Others’ parents should consider doing the same. If not, “bad luck” I guess. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, F250 said:

Eh, promogeniture was mostly rejected in the United States. Granted, this is specific to the first born male inheriting property but the idea of generational wealth being passed down was more of a British concept than an American one. Americans were trying to break from the feudal practices of Europe that lead to aristocratics or oligarchs.

The concept is very American.

America is the land of fortune and fame and the American Dream is literally the idea that you can be a nobody poor and strike it rich. From literal gold rushes to modern day metaphorical gold rushes (if I have to hear the analogy of nVidia being a picks and shovels company again, I'll pull what's left of my hair out), the idea is some mix of risk, moxie, balls, skill, meritocracy, ideas/foresight, and execution can create generational wealth for you and yours and you can enter the strata of rich that the other countries that the early Americans fled from could only dream and it wasn't a real possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Howlin wolf said:

What are the 3 areas/industries where governments and polticians work the hardest to make things “affordable” for the average citizen?

Housing, healthcare, higher education. 

These are 3 industries/purchases that have easily outpaced inflation over the last few decades. Perhaps more than any other. (I dont feel like looking up sources right now)

Lol it's the government that's been greedily inflating profit margins and replacing my school board with covid and election truthers that are trying to destroy the district? Give me a fucking break, GRUhorn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

My guess is you’re a fucking idiot who has neither generational wealth nor even a basic understanding of how capitalism works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It isn't performative faux humility (or it shouldn't be).  It should be real.  Be humble.  Be kind.  Use what you have been given to do good.  Be aware of other people's situations, which are often no more their fault than your situation (and advantage) is your fault.  Have some empathy, which goes hand-in-hand with humility.

DON'T be the guy born on third base who brags about how he hit a triple, making fun of all of those people stuck standing at the plate without even a bat.

It absolutely needs to be real, and our actions mean as much if not more than any discussions we have with our kids. My kindergartner is a willing listener and joins in the discussion in the car when I bring up empathy and kindness. But the most important thing we can do is walk the walk. They notice and absorb that at a very young age. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is the land of fortune and fame and the American Dream is literally the idea that you can be a nobody poor and strike it rich. From literal gold rushes to modern day metaphorical gold rushes (if I have to hear the analogy of nVidia being a picks and shovels company again, I'll pull what's left of my hair out), the idea is some mix of risk, moxie, balls, skill, meritocracy, ideas/foresight, and execution can create generational wealth for you and yours and you can enter the strata of rich that the other countries that the early Americans fled from could only dream and it wasn't a real possibility.

You forgot luck. Randomness is something we look to blame when it doesn’t work out, but something we owe to our genius and risk taking venture when it rewards us.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It absolutely needs to be real, and our actions mean as much if not more than any discussions we have with our kids. My kindergartner is a willing listener and joins in the discussion in the car when I bring up empathy and kindness. But the most important thing we can do is walk the walk. They notice and absorb that at a very young age. 
 

100%. I’m very fortunate that my wife is great at living that out all the time. Our kids grew up in a house where we’ve taken people in, given freely, etc., and it was ingrained in them in a “this is how you’re supposed to do life” kind of way. All the conversations and such help, but the example…especially when it’s hard or inconvenient, is what drives it home.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, DixonHur is right that escheat of wealth to the state was a common practice for most of history.  But it wasn't intended as beneficial for anyone except the crown/ruler/monarch and whatever trickle down to the nobles and serfs he or she decided to provide.  It was an accouterment of the fact that the crown/state owned all property subject to revocable grants to citizens.  (I am excluding/ignoring here more primitive societies that may have more collectivist motives in taking property on death).

Britain changed that in 1540.  And I think that became somewhat symbolic if not a necessary feature of a classically liberal society.

So, yeah in some ways that's "unamerican" in the sense that we attempted to bring over the best aspects of a classically liberal society and government from Britain, which included ownership of private property and the right to designate heirs to that property on death.

But complete escheat (forfeit) of property to the state on death is not (quite) the same thing as taxation on death, even fairly confiscatory taxation.

I do think it's probably a better idea to tax wealth in some way during life to avoid the accumulation of grotesque estates that can be inherited.  If nothing else, it smooths the cash flow.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I do think it's probably a better idea to tax wealth in some way during life to avoid the accumulation of grotesque estates that can be inherited.  If nothing else, it smooths the cash flow.

The real issue is the money going up the economic ladder and then stagnating up there. It isn't getting turned around and spent on the business or on the employees that made the surplus - it goes to shareholders and outside interests that don't generate value and merely trade on it. 

There's a real issue happening where on paper billionaires (thanks to a large value of stocks) can get loans against their paper to turn it into cash and never pay taxes on it, since debt isn't taxable. It's causing that money to leave the economic cycle and just become hoarded, while still inflicting inflation on the economy at large

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The real issue is the money going up the economic ladder and then stagnating up there. It isn't getting turned around and spent on the business or on the employees that made the surplus - it goes to shareholders and outside interests that don't generate value and merely trade on it. 

There's a real issue happening where on paper billionaires (thanks to a large value of stocks) can get loans against their paper to turn it into cash and never pay taxes on it, since debt isn't taxable. It's causing that money to leave the economic cycle and just become hoarded, while still inflicting inflation on the economy at large

This is the issue. It’s that it doesn’t get spent and it doesn’t really get invested either. It’s all paper funny money and it’s only purpose is to generate more paper funny money after a certain degree of unspendability. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, DixonHur is right that escheat of wealth to the state was a common practice for most of history.  But it wasn't intended as beneficial for anyone except the crown/ruler/monarch and whatever trickle down to the nobles and serfs he or she decided to provide.  It was an accouterment of the fact that the crown/state owned all property subject to revocable grants to citizens.  (I am excluding/ignoring here more primitive societies that may have more collectivist motives in taking property on death).

Britain changed that in 1540.  And I think that became somewhat symbolic if not a necessary feature of a classically liberal society.

So, yeah in some ways that's "unamerican" in the sense that we attempted to bring over the best aspects of a classically liberal society and government from Britain, which included ownership of private property and the right to designate heirs to that property on death.

But complete escheat (forfeit) of property to the state on death is not (quite) the same thing as taxation on death, even fairly confiscatory taxation.

I do think it's probably a better idea to tax wealth in some way during life to avoid the accumulation of grotesque estates that can be inherited.  If nothing else, it smooths the cash flow.

In England escheatment only occurred if the land-holder died without heirs or committed a felony.  If it was a feudal felony, it reverted to the overlord and if it was treason it reverted to the Crown. The inheritance to the estate followed primogeniture. The law of wills allowed you to bypass primogeniture and leave two-thirds to anyone you named in a will.  But before that estates didn’t automatically return to the crown upon death, and this was the whole reason nobles of all stripes obsessed over having male sons. 
 

It’s not a terrible idea to bring back a modified form of this— allow you to leave it property to certain defined relatives that you may choose, or things like charities that you don’t control and to levy a 1/3 tax across the board.  The practice of leaving things in trust to cats or to your foundation that then pays your kids’ salaries is not an engine of economic vigor. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nivek said:


You forgot luck. Randomness is something we look to blame when it doesn’t work out, but something we owe to our genius and risk taking venture when it rewards us.

For Sure! Luck is most of it, if we are truly honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BeardIP said:

America is the land of fortune and fame and the American Dream is literally the idea that you can be a nobody poor and strike it rich. From literal gold rushes to modern day metaphorical gold rushes (if I have to hear the analogy of nVidia being a picks and shovels company again, I'll pull what's left of my hair out), the idea is some mix of risk, moxie, balls, skill, meritocracy, ideas/foresight, and execution can create generational wealth for you and yours and you can enter the strata of rich that the other countries that the early Americans fled from could only dream and it wasn't a real possibility.

Oh yeah, I think Weber covered this in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Wait, no it wasn't in that work. Tocqueville probably observed this and addressed it in Democracy in America. Oh, that's not right either.

This must have come from a 1980s movie.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, DixonHur is right that escheat of wealth to the state was a common practice for most of history.  But it wasn't intended as beneficial for anyone except the crown/ruler/monarch and whatever trickle down to the nobles and serfs he or she decided to provide.  It was an accouterment of the fact that the crown/state owned all property subject to revocable grants to citizens.  (I am excluding/ignoring here more primitive societies that may have more collectivist motives in taking property on death).

As @956 Worldwide points out escheat was only when there were no heirs.

Secondly, we don't live under a "crown/ruler/monarch".  If we don't trust our government, then perhaps it's time for a new form of government...but that's a topic for CR, not here.

Here we're just dealing with hypothetical ideas...the implementation of which may or may not require changes to the government.

Finally, I really take umbrage to the classification of "primitive societies".  This is an old trope that needs to die...that of the noble savage.  Speaking specifically about tribal cultures in the "new world", Jesuit priests wrote about their customs and even brought a few Native Americans to Europe for dialogs about their culture...this is exactly what sparked the "enlightenment" in Europe to take place.  But the Europeans didn't adopt all of the ideas because they thought the Indians were too naive to understand the complexities of society.  

However, recent archeological and anthropological evidence suggests the opposite.  They were acutely aware of the dangers associated with central rule (before the Europeans arrived) and worked hard to avoid them.  In fact, the considered the Europeans to be slaves to their governments.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only point is that the right or ability to pass down wealth or property has been at best conditional throughout most of history.

The unfettered right to devise wealth or property is a relatively recent development, although it has attained almost "human right" status in that it seems to be a feature of most post-medieval societies that are regarded as advanced (whether they actually are or not).

So, maybe it shouldn't be regarded as something sacrosanct.

Nevertheless, as Captainant elucidated, it may be better to tax/confiscate that wealth before it accumulates to better keep the assets productive for anyone except the owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...