Used Value vs Age

[Steppenwolfe]

Wow, really? Anything stated that isn't true?

Somehow I believe your version of the truth is questionable.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

If it can’t be refuted, call it names.

Yep.

MoKelly

Call it what it is... Works for me.

 

[rScotty]

When I was young I used to be against immigrant workers because they took away the harvest and farm work that our family had traditionally done for generations.

When the immigrants came in the 1950s they worked so cheaply in the fields that our family had to turn to other jobs. We had no other choice, so we adapted.

Now that I've lived to be an older guy, I see those immigrants today on our borders and that started me thinking....

Some of those people left everything, and have now walked for years and thousands of miles for years while living hand to mouth...and all for a slight chance that they might get lucky enough to do hard labor that few of us here want to do.

Maybe they aren't such bad people; maybe most are exactly the kind of people we want.

I'm not convinced yet; I'm still thinking it through...
rScotty

 

[Hay Dude]

When I was young I used to be against immigrant workers because they took away the harvest and farm work that our family had traditionally done for generations.

When the immigrants came in the 1950s they worked so cheaply in the fields that our family had to turn to other jobs. We had no other choice, so we adapted.

Now that I've lived to be an older guy, I see those immigrants today on our borders and that started me thinking....

Some of those people left everything, and have now walked for years and thousands of miles for years while living hand to mouth...and all for a slight chance that they might get lucky enough to do hard labor that few of us here want to do.

Maybe they aren't such bad people; maybe most are exactly the kind of people we want.

I'm not convinced yet; I'm still thinking it through...
rScotty

I don’t think anyone, including myself, thinks they are bad people, but all people of all nationalitie, religions, etc. have a minority of bad people in them.
What would be nice is to allow lots of good people to immigrate into the US, rather than have the borders over run by people in a disorderly manner of which we have no idea what their character is.

 

[MoKelly]

Call it what it is... Works for me.

Yep.

 

[Cougsfan]

May I relate a story: I was in Arizona helping my dying brother sell his home. The home was inspected and had the usual "needed fixed" list. An old lifetime Anglo Arizonan electrician came by to take care of the electrical issues. This was about the time the border wall was a big topic. He brought up the subject. He said " We don't need no friggin wall between us and Mexico. If them Mexicans didn't come up here there wouldn't be anyone who would do any work. They are more honest and harder working than most Americans. What we really need is a big a$$ wall between us and California to keep those damn rich Californians out. They are the ones who are screwing Arizona up with all their damn money, raising the cost of everything."
Not wanting to get into a political discussion, I didn't offer a reply or opinion. I just chuckled at his unique perspective.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

When I was young I used to be against immigrant workers because they took away the harvest and farm work that our family had traditionally done for generations.

When the immigrants came in the 1950s they worked so cheaply in the fields that our family had to turn to other jobs. We had no other choice, so we adapted.

Now that I've lived to be an older guy, I see those immigrants today on our borders and that started me thinking....

Some of those people left everything, and have now walked for years and thousands of miles for years while living hand to mouth...and all for a slight chance that they might get lucky enough to do hard labor that few of us here want to do.

Maybe they aren't such bad people; maybe most are exactly the kind of people we want.

I'm not convinced yet; I'm still thinking it through...
rScotty

Yeah it's kind of sad if you think about it.

 

[rScotty]

May I relate a story: I was in Arizona helping my dying brother sell his home. The home was inspected and had the usual "needed fixed" list. An old lifetime Anglo Arizonan electrician came by to take care of the electrical issues. This was about the time the border wall was a big topic. He brought up the subject. He said " We don't need no friggin wall between us and Mexico. If them Mexicans didn't come up here there wouldn't be anyone who would do any work. They are more honest and harder working than most Americans. What we really need is a big a$$ wall between us and California to keep those damn rich Californians out. They are the ones who are screwing Arizona up with all their damn money, raising the cost of everything."
Not wanting to get into a political discussion, I didn't offer a reply or opinion. I just chuckled at his unique perspective.

A similar story: I was at dinner with an old, old friend who had always been a thinker and a long time county commissioner for one of the wealthier ski resort counties in Colorado.

We were talking about fishing when all of a sudden he bursts out with, " You know something, it isn't possible to have a democracy that endures when laws allow inherited wealth.".

And he went on to say that in his opinion, inherited wealth always ends upcreating a "haves" vs "have nots" society which is so devisive that it either falls apart or is destroyed."

I've thought a lot about what he said. He may have a point. Our system is still evolving in the USA. Before you say it couldn't happen, the US was actually on that path back in Eisenhower's presidency when income over a million was taxed at 90%.

He went on to say that one solution would be to allow people to give away anything they wanted when alive, but after they pass their wealth goes into a common pot. Doing that could also eliminate taxes.

Like I said, Dwight was a thinker. Wish he were here now...
rScotty

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

A similar story: I was at dinner with an old, old friend who had always been a thinker and a long time county commissioner for one of the wealthier ski resort counties in Colorado.

We were talking about fishing when all of a sudden he bursts out with, " You know something, it isn't possible to have a democracy that endures when laws allow inherited wealth.".

And he went on to say that in his opinion, inherited wealth always ends upcreating a "haves" vs "have nots" society which is so devisive that it either falls apart or is destroyed."

I've thought a lot about what he said. He may have a point. Our system is still evolving in the USA. Before you say it couldn't happen, the US was actually on that path back in Eisenhower's presidency when income over a million was taxed at 90%.

He went on to say that one solution would be to allow people to give away anything they wanted when alive, but after they pass their wealth goes into a common pot. Doing that could also eliminate taxes.

Like I said, Dwight was a thinker. Wish he were here now...
rScotty

Ok, I vehemently disagree with your friend's position on this. The problem is not inherited wealth it's a lack of values. Put anything in the hands of the wrong person and you will have a problem. Our society is not falling apart because people have inherited money and wealth from their forefathers, it's because the values of people have gone down the drain.

 

[rScotty]

Ok, I vehemently disagree with your friend's position on this. The problem is not inherited wealth it's a lack of values. Put anything in the hands of the wrong person and you will have a problem. Our society is not falling apart because people have inherited money and wealth from their forefathers, it's because the values of people have gone down the drain.

Then we need to figure out what it takes to create values in people.

 

[Hay Dude]

Then we need to figure out what it takes to create values in people.

We already know, but too many people chose not to have values. IMO, many religious values that are impugned in today’s society, would help tremendously

 

[Torvy]

Big difference between income and wealth. The most generational wealthy pass down their land. Many of those continue farming. Others either divide up the land and sell it to developers or to 'corporate' farms. There are not nearly as many fat cat idle rich as people believe. One to three generations is about all it lasts. Those who last beyond that are usually politically connected, think Kennedy. Most farmers have a hard time because of low income, not low wealth. Think 'cash poor'.

The 90% income tax actually prevented people from achieving. It stunted development and contributed to the economic malaise of the 70s. The 'wealthy' avoid income taxes because their money is tied up in trusts and properties. They don't show much 'income' so they were not paying 90%. The people paying that were the young up and comers who innovated and were climbing the economic ladder. Another good reason to abandon income taxes in favor of sales taxes.

 

[Hay Dude]

Big difference between income and wealth. The most generational wealthy pass down their land. Many of those continue farming. Others either divide up the land and sell it to developers or to 'corporate' farms. There are not nearly as many fat cat idle rich as people believe. One to three generations is about all it lasts. Those who last beyond that are usually politically connected, think Kennedy. Most farmers have a hard time because of low income, not low wealth. Think 'cash poor'.

The 90% income tax actually prevented people from achieving. It stunted development and contributed to the economic malaise of the 70s. The 'wealthy' avoid income taxes because their money is tied up in trusts and properties. They don't show much 'income' so they were not paying 90%. The people paying that were the young up and comers who innovated and were climbing the economic ladder. Another good reason to abandon income taxes in favor of sales taxes.

I agree with most of that. I live in DuPont country. They invested in large tracts of land, some of which I farm for them. They are extremely wealthy and generous people. They are not very politically connected, although Pete DuPont was and ran for President in the 80s.
I notice their wealth preservation strategy seems to be the purchase and holding of high value property. Otherwise, they drive ordinary cars, wear ordinary clothes and keep a very humble profile.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

I agree with most of that. I live in DuPont country. They invested in large tracts of land, some of which I farm for them. They are extremely wealthy and generous people. They are not very politically connected, although Pete DuPont was and ran for President in the 80s.
I notice their wealth preservation strategy seems to be the purchase and holding of high value property. Otherwise, they drive ordinary cars, wear ordinary clothes and keep a very humble profile.

"Otherwise, they drive ordinary cars, wear ordinary clothes and keep a very humble profile."

That's the way to be if your wise. The worst thing you can do is advertise you have money.

 

[Hay Dude]

"Otherwise, they drive ordinary cars, wear ordinary clothes and keep a very humble profile."

That's the way to be if your wise. The worst thing you can do is advertise you have money.

That’s something all the first generation Nouveau Riche clowns do in my area.
They move here to get away from the city, buy 20 acres, 5 new trucks and Kubotas and call themselves a “farmer“ to cheat the tax code.

 

[IndyJay]

We were talking about fishing when all of a sudden he bursts out with, " You know something, it isn't possible to have a democracy that endures when laws allow inherited wealth.".

And he went on to say that in his opinion, inherited wealth always ends upcreating a "haves" vs "have nots" society which is so devisive that it either falls apart or is destroyed."

I've thought a lot about what he said. He may have a point. Our system is still evolving in the USA. Before you say it couldn't happen, the US was actually on that path back in Eisenhower's presidency when income over a million was taxed at 90%.

He went on to say that one solution would be to allow people to give away anything they wanted when alive, but after they pass their wealth goes into a common pot. Doing that could also eliminate taxes.

Like I said, Dwight was a thinker. Wish he were here now...
rScotty

Sorry, but I disagree with your friend vehemently. Our country was founded on the principle of the right to own property. Part of ownership is deciding who you want to give it to when you leave this Earth. Socialists often try to gin up class envy by suggesting that the only way to make it fair is to take from one group and give to another group. They do not believe in the right to own anything, everything belongs to "the people" or, as your friend put it, "the common pot".

The funny thing about inheritance taxes and other "feel good" solutions is that it doesn't really affect the very wealthy. They can afford to set up "foundations" and other dodges to shield their wealth from confiscatory taxes. That pretty much leaves the family farm or the estates of upper middle class people who have worked for their wealth.

I am alarmed when I see people spout ideas that are absolutely opposed to the concepts of our freedom. The Constitution was not written to grant us our rights. It was written to declare and affirm our God-given rights and to restrict the Government's ability to infringe upon those rights. When I read comments about how the government should "allow" or "not allow" things that are beyond the scope of their power I have to question where that is coming from.

 

[CobyRupert]

A similar story: I was at dinner with an old, old friend who had always been a thinker and a long time county commissioner for one of the wealthier ski resort counties in Colorado.

We were talking about fishing when all of a sudden he bursts out with, " You know something, it isn't possible to have a democracy that endures when laws allow inherited wealth.".

And he went on to say that in his opinion, inherited wealth always ends upcreating a "haves" vs "have nots" society which is so devisive that it either falls apart or is destroyed."

I've thought a lot about what he said. He may have a point. Our system is still evolving in the USA. Before you say it couldn't happen, the US was actually on that path back in Eisenhower's presidency when income over a million was taxed at 90%.

He went on to say that one solution would be to allow people to give away anything they wanted when alive, but after they pass their wealth goes into a common pot. Doing that could also eliminate taxes.

Like I said, Dwight was a thinker. Wish he were here now...
rScotty

He’s sort on to something, but I don’t agree with his solution. There is a danger to democracy when wealth accumulates in a few people’s hands. There also a danger to democracy when the poor are uneducated and/or p*ssed off.
He’s also sort of stumbled upon a truth about corporations (I.e. corporate charters). Corporate charters are not an inalienable right.
Corporations were originally allowed to form and have special “super human” powers and limited liability when they were needed to build large scale projects (roads, bridges, railroads, or other institutions that bettered man) that likely couldn’t be financed by one human. The originators knew these things could turn into monsters. As such, they were often only allowed to exist in specific instances and with limited lifespans.
Over time, and a few lawsuits later, the inherent dangers of corporations were forgotten as they became more normalized. Eventually they were recognized as having the same political rights as people. This monster has rights to shape our government and determined how we, humans, mortals are governed.
They’re recognized as people …but they’re people who don’t die, their wealth is limited by 40-50 years of earning potential. They’re people who can lie, steal, bribe and murder but can’t go to prison. They’re immortals who don’t have to worry about family, their ONLY objective, and chartered responsibility, is profit. …and now they can contribute to politicians just like a human, but to cancel out human interests and enact priorities of their own.
..but us humans, being so adaptable, have gotten use to this and just see it as normal. Many will even defend these Frankensteins.

 

[Cougsfan]

Weather you agree or disagree with Scottie's friend, you seemingly would have to admit that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is an issue that needs to be somehow addressed. Somewhere along the line many of us have modified the definition on liberty and freedom to mean that our priorities and desires overrule that of others. So may the strongest survive and screw the rest. The golden rule has become a rule many talk about but is only for use when convenient and doesn't cost you anything. The people without values are definitely a problem, but maybe some of us who think we have values need to reassess our definition of values.

 

[mo1]

Weather you agree or disagree with Scottie's friend, you seemingly would have to admit that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is an issue that needs to be somehow addressed. Somewhere along the line many of us have modified the definition on liberty and freedom to mean that our priorities and desires overrule that of others. So may the strongest survive and screw the rest. The golden rule has become a rule many talk about but is only for use when convenient and doesn't cost you anything. The people without values are definitely a problem, but maybe some of us who think we have values need to reassess our definition of values.

I think it is more appropriate today to follow the "inverse golden rule," which is "treat others the same way they treat you."

 

[Steppenwolfe]

That’s something all the first generation Nouveau Riche clowns do in my area.
They move here to get away from the city, buy 20 acres, 5 new trucks and Kubotas and call themselves a “farmer“ to cheat the tax code.

******* s... How dare they use capitalism in such a fashion.