Thread: Turn around is fair play

Originally Posted by Thomas Covenant

This is a derail, but bugger it. The problem with inheritance taxes is that's the third time you've taxed that money. The earnings were taxed, then the savings or gains were taxed, and then when the poor sod dies it's taxed again.

It's not honest to keep biting at the same cherry.

The juxtaposed words "honest" and "politician" are an oxymoron at best.
The politician is the second oldest profession because it requires exactly
the same morality as the first.

Originally Posted by Thomas Covenant

This is a derail, but bugger it. The problem with inheritance taxes is that's the third time you've taxed that money. The earnings were taxed, then the savings or gains were taxed, and then when the poor sod dies it's taxed again.

It's not honest to keep biting at the same cherry.

It's worse than dishonest - it's also stupid.

Allowing people to think they are building a dynasty is yet another way of harnassing their labour. Destroying the idea of family legacy, and taxing what is left of ones estate, leaves a very real incentive to not bother working so hard and to spend as much of ones money so as not to leave too much behind afterward.

Taking people's stuff has always been the fastest way of getting less overall.

EDIT: I have to add that thanks partly to excessive government redistribution, I made the decision 11 years ago not to bother growing my wealth, to live as leanly as possible, and to get by on a minimal contribution to the formal economy. Soon as I did that, my life satisfaction started improving, and has been steadily improving ever since - and I'm not at all ungrateful for having been pushed that direction unwillingly.

It also involves risk-taking, and the ability to assess what's in front of you without falling afoul of your own biases. Women need not apply!

Originally Posted by Mikediver

The obvious solution is to not put women into medical school, as it is a terrible waste of limited resources in a critical area. We all know that will never happen.

I disagree with that solution. I think no woman who has the brains and desire to become a doctor should be held back. I also don't think society should bear the burden of wasting a very valuable schooling and education on someone who will not use it much.

A good solution is the system we currently already have in the US. Medecine students borrow around $100k that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy to pay for their schooling. If they end up using their schooling and education, they end up very well off. Those who stop after a few years, they either pay for the waste themselves, or have some white knight riding to their rescue pay for such a waste.

I don't know whether medical school is subsidized or not in the US. If it is, subsidies should stop, to make it less likely for such schooling being wasted by women who become medical doctors just to prove the point that they can do it too. That would turn what is already a good solution into a great solution.

If they end up using their schooling and education, they end up very well off. Those who stop after a few years, they either pay for the waste themselves, or have some white knight riding to their rescue pay for such a waste.

Good point - but is there not a welfare system that will prevent them from starvation and homelessness? In that case, the taxpayer will always be hit for the cost of at least that.

Originally Posted by Abdenour

I disagree with that solution. I think no woman who has the brains and desire to become a doctor should be held back. I also don't think society should bear the burden of wasting a very valuable schooling and education on someone who will not use it much.

A good solution is the system we currently already have in the US. Medecine students borrow around $100k that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy to pay for their schooling. If they end up using their schooling and education, they end up very well off. Those who stop after a few years, they either pay for the waste themselves, or have some white knight riding to their rescue pay for such a waste.

I don't know whether medical school is subsidized or not in the US. If it is, subsidies should stop, to make it less likely for such schooling being wasted by women who become medical doctors just to prove the point that they can do it too. That would turn what is already a good solution into a great solution.

Agreed.

If there are people out there who want to spend enormous sums for a formal education, but aren't too concerned about it actually being an investment, then so long as they pay for it all themselves, the education is no different to any other consumer product. If social status and being able to crow 'women are better than men' while waving their degree in the air is something they'll pay for, why not? How is it different to paying 6 figures for a flash automobile? Just another industry to grow.

Originally Posted by Mikediver

I am in the banking industry. The banking industry is already 70% women. It will only get worse.

I've been doing business with the same credit union for years, and I remember there being only one man working as teller. It seems to be a woman's business.

Originally Posted by mongolking

It's worse than dishonest - it's also stupid.

Allowing people to think they are building a dynasty is yet another way of harnassing their labour. Destroying the idea of family legacy, and taxing what is left of ones estate, leaves a very real incentive to not bother working so hard and to spend as much of ones money so as not to leave too much behind afterward.

Taking people's stuff has always been the fastest way of getting less overall.

EDIT: I have to add that thanks partly to excessive government redistribution, I made the decision 11 years ago not to bother growing my wealth, to live as leanly as possible, and to get by on a minimal contribution to the formal economy. Soon as I did that, my life satisfaction started improving, and has been steadily improving ever since - and I'm not at all ungrateful for having been pushed that direction unwillingly.

I would love to see a separate thread where you give a little more detail as to how you accomplished this!!!

Originally Posted by Grimjack

I would love to see a separate thread where you give a little more detail as to how you accomplished this!!!

I've been open about this on several men's forums for the past 11 years. This one, Happy Bachelors, MGTOWHQ, and the several now defunct sites.

The essence of it is pretty simple. I had a good job, I stayed single, I lived modestly, I invested all my surplus earnings and I did as much for myself as I possibly could. By the time I got to 45, I reached that point where the income from my investments exceeded what I needed for a simple life - and that wasn't a lot. It was less than what political parties call a poverty wage.

Once I had 24 hours a day all to myself, and less than a poverty wage, I was able to turn my full attention on surviving in basic mode. I lost all expenses related to working: car, suits, telephone. I lost all expenses related to socialising and became a full on hermit (except for the internet). I grew my own food, raised chickens, made beer and wine, learned how to make all the foods I could ever need, such as bread, yoghurt, sauerkraut, and pasta.

10 years later I'm still at it, still learning and having a much better time than I would have been having back in the old days when I was a software developer.