TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Birthright
Birthright
Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.
"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.
here we go again.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Joe Bialek and I was born on September 12, 1963 just 40 days before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. My family was originally from Cleveland, Ohio. It is the city of my current residence. I attended Padua High School in Parma, Ohio and went on to complete a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and a Masters of Public Administration at the University of Akron. In 1993, I moved back to Cleveland and resided in my grandfather's house located in the neighborhood known as Slavic Village. This is where my grandfather immigrated from Poland and the house where my father was born. I then ran for city council against the incumbent who was elected in 1985. After work each day I would walk to each of the 9,000 registered households from April to August and seemed to make a positive impression among the voters. However two other candidates entered the race and I finished last. The strange thing about the results, however, was the disparity between the absentee ballots and the card-punched ballots. According to the absentee ballots, I lost by a 2-to-1 margin to the incumbent but won by a 16-to-1 margin over the other two candidates. But according to the card-punched ballots, I finished last by just 4 votes. I was so exhausted by the campaign that a recount was the furthest from my mind. In the general election, the incumbent retained his seat. Shortly after the election, I was elected President of South East Clevelanders Together. The purpose of this non-profit group was to organize each of the twelve sub-neighborhoods located within Slavic Village (Ward 12) to address quality of life issues in an aggressive and systematic manner. Needless to say, it did not take long for our group to clash with the Councilman's housing group. Their primary objective was to build and rehabilitate housing without any real regard for the other issues affecting the residents and business owners. The councilman's father owns a large real estate company so I'll let you draw your own conclusion. Our funding was cut off from the City of Cleveland and efforts to raise money through foundations were sabotaged. Inevitably I was forced to use my own money to sustain the efforts of the organization. In spite of all the resistance, however, we were very successfull in organizing block clubs and civic associations as well as bringing pressure to provide solutions to the problems plaguing the community. All during this time, the councilman attempted to spin my intentions as simply an effort to prepare for a second council run. I did not run again in 1997 because I felt it would be more beneficial for the community if SECT continued to push for action rather than allow the entrenched councilman to ignore issues while his housing group pushed rehabilitations and new construction. In 1999, I moved to the Old Brooklyn neighborhood of the city of Cleveland. I decided to withdraw from public life and shift my focus to reading philosophy, economics, sociology, religion, psychology and political theory. I also committed to writing a editorial piece once per month hence the reason for my monthly email and message board postings. I do this out of altruism and receive no compensation what so ever. My sole objective is to offer suggestions on how we may fine tune America and stear the United States in a positive direction. I know I've been guilty of posting to message boards and not returning to join in the discussion. But I have read most responses. Accordingly, I hereby commit to returning no sooner or later than 24 hours after my post to answer counter arguments. I'll only respond to intellectual contributions not insults or statements from those who treat message boards like their little fiefdoms. For those of you who would like to contact me, you may reach me at the email address listed below. Thanks and let us continue to "fine tune America". Joe Bialek Cleveland, Ohio [email protected] |
I believe we've had this socialist argument already? 
I have an idea, work hard/smart and get paid what you're worth.
A free market society can be a bitch to those that abuse the system; its a natural check and balance for those that abuse it (if the law doesn't get to them first).
look joe, i agree with the first part and disagree with the second.
i've argued in the past that inheritance should be banned in most circumstances. i still believe this to some degree.
the free market and poor information are responsible for the second part. i don't think the government should get involved here.
Re: Birthright
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society. "A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest. |
Re: Birthright
i wonder how many in pdd will become a joebialek when he/she retires too? lol. one really can't fault his sincerity, but it seems so phantom-/creepy-/robot-like.
Exhibit 1.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spacey Orange look joe, i agree with the first part and disagree with the second. i've argued in the past that inheritance should be banned in most circumstances. i still believe this to some degree. the free market and poor information are responsible for the second part. i don't think the government should get involved here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail What?! Where do you think the inheritance should go instead? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spacey Orange srsly, i think there ought to be a cap on inheritence, say $200,000 dollars per person. the remainder should go to the state. i think this would encourage people a lot of people to be harder working and productive. or conversly people could receive the money as a gift, which could also be taxed. |
I'll never leave my kids a cure for cancer, world peace or even prospects of a small amount security in a tough, unfair world. All they'll get from me is some money and taught how to spend it wisely.
The rest is in the hands of the gods so to speak.
As is the government rips 1000's out of me every year in taxes, excises and fees, not to mention that if they where in the private sector with that much accountability a lot of these jokers would get sacked for incompetence in short order.
Trust them with anything more than my taxes, no, you have to be kidding!
I've lost hundreds of thousands worth of property in one country already from my inheritance simply because some fascist/socialist dictator decided to nationalise it.
You myopic little yankee socialist pricks are bastard by-products of under education, over indulgence and spoilt upbringing don't know how damn lucky you are to live where you do and are the least experienced to tell the rest of the world how to live.
Want a hint on how to make your lot better in life in the US instead of whining about it like brats on the internet?
Stop electing B-grade washed up actors and cashed up white trash daddy's boys as politicians in that joke of a popularity contest that could only be mockingly called a democratic process and start electing people that actually know how to do the job.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka What exactly is the role of goverment in your opinion? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spacey Orange enourage fighting, but not letting the fights get out of hand. |
Inheritance is no different to cash or whatever given while you are alive is it?
Given that well I don't have kids, but I'd suspect that when I do I'll stop doing things for my good and start doing it for theirs. If that was pointless (they would not get an advantage) then surely it would de-motivate me to strive to do better, and ergo when expanded upon a downward trend would happen.
Also do you really think that the super rich would be affected but any legislation to stop this? I'd see the poor/middle getting screwed and the rich getting richer.
good points
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.