US wealth inequality now as equally bad as Russia

[Spartanmack]

shit...we have Netfilx and Amazon Prime as well. I'm guessing that's another $25 per month.

The only sport I would miss would be Tigers games on Fox Sports Detroit...but that's a lot of games.

I don't allocate any of my prime annual fee to entertainment because I'd have it anyway, the content is just gravy. I don't watch baseball on TV so I don't know about FSD but you can definitely get FS, FS1 and others from diff streaming services.

There's no perfect answer - if I wanted to see every MSU football and basketball game I'd end up spending at least half my current savings from not having cable on subscribing to multiple streaming services to get every lesser channel like FS1, ESPNU, etc, etc. For now, I'm OK missing MSU vs. Houston Baptist, or Southern Utah or even Oakland U. I've even given up BTN after football season because the hoops games on BTN are the crap games like Tues night at Nebraska and I don't have time to watch them all anyway.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I guess it depends on your perspective. People that don't have a bunch of money probably feel the estate tax threshold should be lower and the tax rate higher. But if you were very wealthy, working your entire life paying 35-40% federal taxes every year, only to have it taxed again upon death...I would be pissed as well.

I feel that there should be no estate tax.

About one new stiff in every 600 is gonna depart owing on his or her estate.

I almost surely will not be one of them.

I almost surely will end up getting to die for free, just like almost every other American.

 

[Spartanmack]

if the desire is to ensure a meritocracy, "wealth" needs to be taxed at a hell of a lot higher rates.

the GOP has been making a big deal about the estate tax "breaking up family farms" but that's crap. they seem to fall over themselves while trying to avoid admitting that the personal exemption from the estate tax is a whopping $5.49 MILLION dollars.

though, I'm sure the Monopoly Guy would disagree:

"Come now,
dear boy.

$5.49 Million is not
a terribly large sum
these days.

T'would barely cover
a year's maintenance
on the yacht."

you're constantly trying to make the case for taxes ensuring meritocracy but it fails miserably. Taxing wealth to redistribute it to people who didn't earn it isn't fostering meritocracy, it's doing the opposite. And inherited wealth isn't a blight on society - it's not creating a burden for the rest of us because wealthy people aren't on welfare. Plus, it's already been taxed and the government has no legitimate claim to it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Redistributing wealth would be very low on the list of ways to improve influence in politics

No kidding. I hope you don't think that's what I was saying.

 

[Gulo Blue]

though, I'm sure the Monopoly Guy would disagree:

You could ask her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Iar5PZVboc

 

[TheVictors]

10 or 15 years ago it made more sense. now that device is the primary job search tool for a lot of people.

I'm talking about some guy in India pulling a rickshaw with a cellphone on a chain around his neck as a basic utility for communicating with the world. I'm talking about my stepdads VOIP company helping impoverished Africans communicate with relatives in America in ways that weren't Govt-owned and controlled telecom lines..

Information exchange and connectedness isn't a luxury anymore, it's a basic need.

Hell, even some unemployed schlub in the US would leave his cable TV connected until impossible so he'd have something to do every day while "looking for a job."


But I don't care, I'm in the 1% ...

 

[Mitchrapp]

the money we pay for mostly "luxury" items is crazy. In my household we pay almost $600 per month for cable, a phone line, internet and cell phone service. It's really stupid if you think about it.

Who says you have to? I got rid of cable, now just a streaming service - big savings. I got rid of my smart phone, now just a flip phone - $49. I didn't realize anyone had a phone line in their home anymore.

 

[Polish-Hammer]

So those commies have been ahead of us in inequality this whole time?

Shit.

And they haven't even had the advantage of having blacks to demean and oppress.

Well.... Serfdom in Russia didn't start to decline until the 1860s

Some parts of Russian empire it lasted much longer.

The largest reason for income inequality in Russia is simple. At the end of communist regime the KGB and their allies controlled everything. After the collapse they continued their hold on the government corporations taking it into their own private hands.

Essentially, the collapse of Soviet Union made the rich richer and the poor SOL as usual.

 

[tomdalton22]

Who says you have to? I got rid of cable, now just a streaming service - big savings. I got rid of my smart phone, now just a flip phone - $49. I didn't realize anyone had a phone line in their home anymore.

I have 2 kids so that's 4 smart phone lines. 5 cable boxes. I could probably get rid of the land line. We have a home office with a fax that we use once in a while and my wife does conference calls on that line. In the cable bundle the land line is basically free.

We do write off a portion of the internet fee and 100% of the land line fee.

 

[Michchamp]

Well.... Serfdom in Russia didn't start to decline until the 1860s

Some parts of Russian empire it lasted much longer.

The largest reason for income inequality in Russia is simple. At the end of communist regime the KGB and their allies controlled everything. After the collapse they continued their hold on the government corporations taking it into their own private hands.

Essentially, the collapse of Soviet Union made the rich richer and the poor SOL as usual.

it's been emerging that the US played a role in that as well, putting Yeltsin in power, and giving free reign to the looters we liked.

Putin put the labosh on that last part.

 

[tinselwolverine]

it's been emerging that the US played a role in that as well, putting Yeltsin in power, and giving free reign to the looters we liked.

Putin put the labosh on that last part.

So we were like, tampering in the election of the Russian president?

 

[Michchamp]

So we were like, tampering in the election of the Russian president?

Totally. Yeltsin was our man.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Everybody should assume that everybody else is trying to mess with their politics. Seems like I once read that back when Poland and Lithuania were military powers, Poland developed an advanced (for the time) political system, which was immediately hijacked by foreign powers leading to Poland disappearing from the map.

 

[Michchamp]

Everybody should assume that everybody else is trying to mess with their politics. Seems like I once read that back when Poland and Lithuania were military powers, Poland developed an advanced (for the time) political system, which was immediately hijacked by foreign powers leading to Poland disappearing from the map.

I do remember reading about that, but while they did develop an advanced representational gov't, I thought it was never fully in place. like the nobility and others, and the church were constantly meddling in it to make sure they kept their traditional power.

Regardless, In the 1600's Poland fought a bunch of bad wars, and got clobbered. In Poland it was called "The Deluge"... everything went to shit at once. Ukraine revolted, and they fought Russia, Sweden, and various German princes all at the same time. Bad idea. This, coupled was coupled with the growth of Prussia to the west as a great power, and Russian growth as well to the East. in the 1700's Prussia, Austria, and Russian simply divvied Poland up. the country was so devastated it had no army to resist.

Poland had somewhat of a revival under Napoleon, although never formally independent. It didn't become an independent nation again until 1918.

then of course at the start of WWII, Poland was in the worst possible geographic location, anywhere on the planet.

 

[Spartanmack]

No kidding. I hope you don't think that's what I was saying.

I don't. I see your point about wealth inequality being more of a problem when $ can influence politics but again, that's a systemic political problem, not an outcome of wealth inequality. And it's a reason to deal with the problem of $ in politics, not wealth inequality.

 

[Spartanmack]

it's been emerging that the US played a role in that as well, putting Yeltsin in power, and giving free reign to the looters we liked.

Putin put the labosh on that last part.

how did we give free reign to preferred looters in a country we didn't control?

 

[Michchamp]

how did we give free reign to preferred looters in a country we didn't control?

No, dummy, we supported Yeltsin who did that. Thought the meaning was obvious, but I guess not.

 

[Spartanmack]

No, dummy, we supported Yeltsin who did that. Thought the meaning was obvious, but I guess not.

No, dummy. No. If you had said "...putting Yeltsin in power, giving free reign to the looters we liked" then MAYBE you'd have a case here but you clearly said "...putting Yeltsin in power, AND giving free reign to the looters we liked." My interpretation, that you're dumb enough to think we had the power to control which looters took control of the countries resources, is much more obvious than your backpedaling, name calling weak explanation of your stupid statement.

Also, dummy, it's not at all clear that we "put Yeltsin in power" and it's doubtful we had that much influence. And second, even if we did help him get into office, it's unclear that he would be giving free reign to the looters we liked. The only thing that's obvious here is who the dummy is. It's you (in case you're too dumb to figure that out). Nice try though.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I thought Yeltsin was already the president of Russia when the military coup the Soviet Army generals attempted against Gorbachev and Yeltsin was thwarted when Russian soldiers in the Soviet military refused to arrest Yeltsin as commanded by those general, and arrested those generals for treason instead.

Something like that.

Was Yeltsin even ever the Soviet premiere? I thought the Soviet Union was dissolved shortly thereafter with Gorbachev as the last premiere, and Yeltsin became the most powerful head of state in the region as the Russian president.

EDIT: Yep, it happened as I remembered it.

 

[Polish-Hammer]

I do remember reading about that, but while they did develop an advanced representational gov't, I thought it was never fully in place. like the nobility and others, and the church were constantly meddling in it to make sure they kept their traditional power.

Regardless, In the 1600's Poland fought a bunch of bad wars, and got clobbered. In Poland it was called "The Deluge"... everything went to shit at once. Ukraine revolted, and they fought Russia, Sweden, and various German princes all at the same time. Bad idea. This, coupled was coupled with the growth of Prussia to the west as a great power, and Russian growth as well to the East. in the 1700's Prussia, Austria, and Russian simply divvied Poland up. the country was so devastated it had no army to resist.

Poland had somewhat of a revival under Napoleon, although never formally independent. It didn't become an independent nation again until 1918.

then of course at the start of WWII, Poland was in the worst possible geographic location, anywhere on the planet.

Polish government wasn't exactly representative.

The Polish King was elected to serve the Nobility. The Sejm (Polish parliament) was only for nobility. Serfs basically had no freedom.

Polish decline occurred largely because country was broke after fighting too many unsuccessful wars. Hell, even Sobieski foresaw the decline of the empire.

The second half of the 18th century Polish politics were a mess and constantly fiddled by outsiders as the country was broke. Nothing could get done in the Sejm either. It was a joke, reminds me a lot of US congress at the moment. An empire clearly on the decline, and unable to do anything politically.

Tadeusz Kosciuszko was promising freedom to the Serfs who fought in the 1794 rebellion against the Russians. His scyth militias even had a few victories over Russian regulars.

Naturally, the Catholic Church was against losing the Serfs (ie. loss of money, and power) and thus did their best to sabotage Kosciuszko and aid the Russian.


At outbreak of world war II Poland was surrounded by enemies on 85% of its borders. It was a miracle Poland lasted as long as it did.


As for Napoleon, the Dutchy of Warsaw was nothing. Following end of Napoleonic wars the Kongress Kingdom under Russia was also a joke. There was some freedoms early, but within a few years they were slowly removed by the Russian crown. Only great thing that happened was the 1830 rebellion where Polish troops refused to march on the Belgians and fought the Russians instead. IIRC was also one of the first times Finnish troops saw battle for the Russian empire.

God's Playground is probably the best source for Polish history.

I still loved the Soviet reviews of it. Along the lines of, it is great until the author reaches the 20th century.

Otherwise, the Polish Way by Zamoyski is decent as well.

As for Kosciuszko the best biography I read was The Peasant Prince.

I do recall Detroit has a statue of Kosciuszko couple blocks from that weird star intersection downtown.