Things that make you go.......WTF?

[think positive]

It's actually somewhat relevant to my personal situation, as Lola's parents have expressed interest in setting up a bank account for Ingmar (essentially, a trust fund). My instinctive reaction is, no, why would I want him to get money for nothing upon reaching adulthood? What sort of lesson does that teach him about hard work and earning his keep? I don't like it at all.

Lola has pointed out that we might be able to use it for his education, and I came around a bit at that: I might want to send him to a private secondary school, after all. But that just makes me ask myself why I'm thinking that way. Is it because I'm afraid that a public education won't be 'good enough'? And if my fears are justified, how screwed up is it that the question of whether or not he receives this 'good enough' education depends on the wealth of his parents or grandparents? How unjust is it that he might get this free kick in life while others don't, simply by virtue of family name? I want the best for him, of course, and that necessarily means abiding by the rules of the game, but it disgusts me.

David is it really your place to make these decisions for your child. If your son grows up and ends up with your attitude to life then he would possibly donate such a large sum toward a charity of his choice. If not he will be one of the annoying teenagers driving a shiny newish car with a green P plate like they are entitled to drive like an idiot! Or he will invest wisely and get himself into a position to look after you and Lola in your old age.

Either way I don't think it's up to you to say no because if his grandparents are smart they'll just set it up without your knowledge anyway and hand it to him at an age they deem appropriate.

Gees that's a great reply. Well said.

[pietillidie]

PTID, I don't want to be "discussion moderator" - I'd just like to see people deal more intelligently with difficult issues. And, no, I didn't miss what you said there - it was the sloppy reasoning behind that particular statement that prompted my comment. Have a look at the entirety of Wokko's paragraph - it makes a quite different and much more subtle point. But, of course, feel free to burn the straw man, if you'd rather.

I'd like to see that too, which is why I skipped over the bit about the all-deserving upper-middle. If you discard the fairy tales and brave the science, you don't get such rot as "deserving", "envious", and " lazy"; these are quasi-religious terms.

Homo sapiens activates its "will to act" by grabbing any old argument laying around to justify where it finds itself. For many in the upper-middle this involves a host of tales about being "truly deserving"; I mean, to be above the rabble must require some sort of exceptional traits, right? And yet, it's such a burden just to stay upper-middle and enjoy the fruits of one's special righteousness!

But aren't all those expenses voluntary? I mean, no one is forcing anyone to live in Camberwell and become one of those sour pusses opposing higher density living and spending hours daily staying in shape and dressing to impress.

That's a lifestyle choice. It's neither a requirement nor a necessity to live that lifestyle. To replace a working-middle class drudgery with a middle-upper class drudgery, and then to get all bitter about it, surely warrants some sort of introspection.

The reality is you could eliminate the middle-upper class from the economy and it wouldn't skip a beat. This is because managers and professionals are a dime a dozen in the population; there's nothing special they bring to the economy as individuals. Take any population and grant it stability and access and you will get another set of Homo sapiens playing out those very same roles because such roles are both enabled and constrained by other forces.

So, what I'd like to hear more of is not basic population biology dressed up as "deserving heroism", but a mature acknowledgement of the human predicament in all its irony. You can only have a tiny elite if it holds such a huge proportion of wealth. And to hold that great a proportion of wealth demands enormous rents and extractions from elsewhere in the economy, which in turn requires legions of foot soldiers and a certain managerial layer.

The managerial layer can't then come along and blame the needs of the foot soldiers when the system depends on their input. It could just as easily blame the elite for depending upon the toil of those foot soldiers. The upper-middle is paying as much tax up to that tiny elite as it is down to the bulk of society, making it more than a bit cowardly for it to scapegoat the weaker of the two groups.

Moreover, with wealth distribution so ridiculously skewed towards the top few percent of society, it's a bit "rich" to ignore just how unjustifiable that gap is, and instead focus on a very modest overall redistribution, much of which directly and indirectly goes to children and young people who have had very little say at all in the configuration of things.

So, not only does the upper-middle have the resources to choose a much more enjoyable lifestyle than it does, but it is notorious for siding with elite wealth the world over, and always has been.

[think positive]

OMFG!

what a load of claptrap

what the hell has made you so bitter?

[Dark Beanie]

This photo of Kim Kardtrashian...

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/bo ... 7120466194

Rumours that she has had butt implants, looking at this photo that bum does not look real.

[David]

PTID, I don't want to be "discussion moderator" - I'd just like to see people deal more intelligently with difficult issues. And, no, I didn't miss what you said there - it was the sloppy reasoning behind that particular statement that prompted my comment. Have a look at the entirety of Wokko's paragraph - it makes a quite different and much more subtle point. But, of course, feel free to burn the straw man, if you'd rather.

I'd like to see that too, which is why I skipped over the bit about the all-deserving upper-middle. If you discard the fairy tales and brave the science, you don't get such rot as "deserving", "envious", and " lazy"; these are quasi-religious terms.

Homo sapiens activates its "will to act" by grabbing any old argument laying around to justify where it finds itself. For many in the upper-middle this involves a host of tales about being "truly deserving"; I mean, to be above the rabble must require some sort of exceptional traits, right? And yet, it's such a burden just to stay upper-middle and enjoy the fruits of one's special righteousness!

But aren't all those expenses voluntary? I mean, no one is forcing anyone to live in Camberwell and become one of those sour pusses opposing higher density living and spending hours daily staying in shape and dressing to impress.

That's a lifestyle choice. It's neither a requirement nor a necessity to live that lifestyle. To replace a working-middle class drudgery with a middle-upper class drudgery, and then to get all bitter about it, surely warrants some sort of introspection.

The reality is you could eliminate the middle-upper class from the economy and it wouldn't skip a beat. This is because managers and professionals are a dime a dozen in the population; there's nothing special they bring to the economy as individuals. Take any population and grant it stability and access and you will get another set of Homo sapiens playing out those very same roles because such roles are both enabled and constrained by other forces.

So, what I'd like to hear more of is not basic population biology dressed up as "deserving heroism", but a mature acknowledgement of the human predicament in all its irony. You can only have a tiny elite if it holds such a huge proportion of wealth. And to hold that great a proportion of wealth demands enormous rents and extractions from elsewhere in the economy, which in turn requires legions of foot soldiers and a certain managerial layer.

The managerial layer can't then come along and blame the needs of the foot soldiers when the system depends on their input. It could just as easily blame the elite for depending upon the toil of those foot soldiers. The upper-middle is paying as much tax up to that tiny elite as it is down to the bulk of society, making it more than a bit cowardly for it to scapegoat the weaker of the two groups.

Moreover, with wealth distribution so ridiculously skewed towards the top few percent of society, it's a bit "rich" to ignore just how unjustifiable that gap is, and instead focus on a very modest overall redistribution, much of which directly and indirectly goes to children and young people who have had very little say at all in the configuration of things.

So, not only does the upper-middle have the resources to choose a much more enjoyable lifestyle than it does, but it is notorious for siding with elite wealth the world over, and always has been.

Great post, PTID. While I agree with P4S that I'd like to see a little more open discussion of Wokko's views (and those of others here), I think you've presented an excellent case for further equalisation in society.

Also, the comment about equalisation policies being founded on "envy of the rich" is quite absurd. Speaking for myself, at least, I can safely say I've never experienced the slightest bit of envy or resentment towards people with more money and possessions than me. In fact, I'm aware that I and others in my (for Australia, relatively low) wage bracket are wealthier than the majority of people around the world. That too is an injustice.

[stui magpie]

I never have and never will be able to parse this socialist concept of wanting to drag the achievers down.

People are carping at the "Wealthy" without defining who or what that actually is, with an attitude that if it's not outright envy it does seem to indicate a serious chip on shoulder. I see this kind of thing all the time with people's misplaced sense of "equity" which usually revolves around making sure that no one is getting anything that they aren't. Petty small minded crap.

The whole progressive scale thing sucks IMO. All it does is allows bracket creep to rob people and acts as a disincentive. A flat tax rate with an appropriate tax free threshold would be the best way to go, and scrap all the deductions, exemptions and other bullshit loopholes.

15% of $1,000,000 is still a lot more than 15% of $50,000.

And this philosophical issue with inheritance shits me to tears. Here's my simple solution to that issue.

If you believe you can afford to pay more tax - don't yap about it, do it. Or even better, donate more money to causes you deem worthy.

If you don't believe people should inherit wealth, then feel free to will your estate to the state or some other charity.

If you want to live in a cave, crapping in a crevice in the floor, eating lichen and keeping up to date with the news using a home made crystal set, go for your friggin life, knock yourself out, be my guest.

BUT, Kindly far coff from trying to impose your values on the rest of society who basically don't share them and don't want them.

[1061]

It's actually somewhat relevant to my personal situation, as Lola's parents have expressed interest in setting up a bank account for Ingmar (essentially, a trust fund). My instinctive reaction is, no, why would I want him to get money for nothing upon reaching adulthood? What sort of lesson does that teach him about hard work and earning his keep? I don't like it at all.

Lola has pointed out that we might be able to use it for his education, and I came around a bit at that: I might want to send him to a private secondary school, after all. But that just makes me ask myself why I'm thinking that way. Is it because I'm afraid that a public education won't be 'good enough'? And if my fears are justified, how screwed up is it that the question of whether or not he receives this 'good enough' education depends on the wealth of his parents or grandparents? How unjust is it that he might get this free kick in life while others don't, simply by virtue of family name? I want the best for him, of course, and that necessarily means abiding by the rules of the game, but it disgusts me.

David is it really your place to make these decisions for your child. If your son grows up and ends up with your attitude to life then he would possibly donate such a large sum toward a charity of his choice. If not he will be one of the annoying teenagers driving a shiny newish car with a green P plate like they are entitled to drive like an idiot! Or he will invest wisely and get himself into a position to look after you and Lola in your old age.

Either way I don't think it's up to you to say no because if his grandparents are smart they'll just set it up without your knowledge anyway and hand it to him at an age they deem appropriate.

Gees that's a great reply. Well said.

Yeah got to admit I'm putting in a few decent ones in lately.

[think positive]

Bravo Stui. Top post.

Tell me David, PTID in your world you want to see free health care for all (I'll second that one, and there should be no limit in regards to treatment, but the luxury hospital bed suite can be privately paid for) free education, right through to tertiary level, everyone should get welfare no questions asked, if they "need" it. We don't need as many police, all the criminals need is more psychiatrists, so we don't need jails either. we don't want to be standing up for anyone else, and we arnt under any threat ourselves, so scrap the army. Open the boarders and let EVERYONE in, no questions asked. (And then pray, oh sorry no god, hope like hell no one attacks is, cos hey shit, we will be on our own. So will you both be going back to work? Babies ain't cheap, and I hope your using cloth nappies. So how about child care? Is that a free for all too? Tell me please, who is going to pay for it all? Gina and co just moved overseas because, well shit, why stay here, when they will be supporting, well everyone! Ah, Ching ching, that's the sound of death, as inheritances are turned over to the state.

So tell me please, what's your contribution?

I'm not picking on you, I'm just exasperated that you seem to think it's in any way possible to turn this country in to, well basically a communist society! And why the hell that might be a good thing?

There is nothing wrong with user pays. You don't use, you don't pay.

Everybody has a right to strive for a better life for themselves and their families. Definately, try hard not to hurt anyone else in that quest. But don't feel guilty if you've got a nice car that you've had your eye on, or you managed to finally get that boat you've always wanted. Your saying your not envious. I know your a very genuine guy, and I'm sure you believe it. But You look down on anyone who cherishes something you yourself don't cherish. Why do people need such big houses/fancy cars/boats/ etc etc? They don't, but they wanted them and went out and got them. If they haven't don't anything illegal, what's the problem? As for they are thieving cheating using loop holes, sure, close e loop holes, but don't blame people for using them when they are available. Of shore accounts? It's not illegal.

[HAL]

Oops. Too much data.

[think positive]

David is it really your place to make these decisions for your child. If your son grows up and ends up with your attitude to life then he would possibly donate such a large sum toward a charity of his choice. If not he will be one of the annoying teenagers driving a shiny newish car with a green P plate like they are entitled to drive like an idiot! Or he will invest wisely and get himself into a position to look after you and Lola in your old age.

Either way I don't think it's up to you to say no because if his grandparents are smart they'll just set it up without your knowledge anyway and hand it to him at an age they deem appropriate.

Gees that's a great reply. Well said.

Yeah got to admit I'm putting in a few decent ones in lately.

Honey let's not get carried away,

But you were right about the iPad! Thanks

[think positive]

Oops. Too much data.

Well FMD hal, what r u gunna tell PTID!

[1061]

Honey let's not get carried away,

But you were right about the iPad! Thanks

Me get carried away never.

But remind me about the ipad?

[HAL]

Oops. Too much data.

Well FMD hal, what r u gunna tell PTID!

Are we still talking about YOU didn't miss what you said there - it was the sloppy reasoning that particular statement that prompted his or her comment ?

[think positive]

This photo of Kim Kardtrashian...

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/bo ... 7120466194

Rumours that she has had butt implants, looking at this photo that bum does not look real.

Photo shop photo shop photo shop!

And then you ask yourself, WHY?

[think positive]

Honey let's not get carried away,

But you were right about the iPad! Thanks

Me get carried away never.

But remind me about the ipad?

The scungy shop fixed it!

Cheers!