From what I've seen, letting cows die or mistreating them is a much worse problem in small agribusiness.
This of course depends on local regulation and legislation. But at least over here (northern EU), the bureaucracy is heavy and requirements quite strong.
Large-scale farming units have internal processes and they have more resources; there are many people doing the work with more thorough official oversight. Small-scale animal care, i.e. family or single-person farms, may be dependent on one person only. When illness - particularly mental illness - or old age kicks in, the animals may be neglected or mistreated in abhorrent ways.
On the other hand, small-scale agribusiness is also where the best animal care can be seen, there is actually an emotional bond between the carer and the animals.
Bad care is eventually caught because when you can't treat your animals well, you won't do your paperwork either. However, it is a strain on small farms as there is a fixed overhead in paperwork that is not much dependent on farm size, so there's a lot more to do per animal on small farms and thus there is more work/cost.
I suppose it is possible that large agribusinesses where you live do this... it is also possible that the small farmers near you have an axe to grind with their larger competition, and/or are open to accepting and spreading gossip and rumors without much basis in reality.
That is certainly a possibility! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't. I did a some quick looking and if your in the US, the USDA guarantees livestock insurance, this likely results in a distortion of the risk and perhaps shifts the incentives towards this sort of behavior.
But I would caution against taking rumor and gossip as strong supporting evidence.
This is so important. We all know beautifully "designed" API's or libraries.
The secret is that the "elegant" API design you see is usually the n-th iteration.
Growing code is much like growing trees. The tree grows itself, what it requires is that it is pruned and helped to reshape in a fashion that will allow it to stay alive for a long time and bear fruit.
You start planting trees, maybe it's in an empty field, or maybe it's in an old forest. At some point it takes root and multiplies. People help plant your forest in unexpected places and it expands. At some point you try pruning and controlling the trees. And at some point a forest fire destroys it making way for a new forest to grow.
>The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation.
At least we're in agreement that parasitism is not a desirable outcome. We seem to disagree on what constitutes parasitic behavior.
First of all, I think that the idea of estate tax is lunacy in and of itself but now that we have it, let's think about what you're saying;
that it's not okay for an individual upon death to transfer his/her wealth to a person of their choosing (whom they may have mentored to further a legacy they were passionate about) but that it is okay for the proletariat to forcibly acquire said wealth because they know better?
How is that not outright theft? I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead. If I would like to leave it to a mentee of mine to further some work I had began, then being the acquirer of said wealth, I deserve that right.
You know, this experiment is already done and dusted. Any time you advocate for egalitarianism, look at the results of "The Berlin Wall's great human experiment" then be afraid. What sort of government shoots its own people to prevent them from running away from the horrid conditions they've created? I'll tell you which one, a socialist/communist one.
It's re-redistributive. Taxation somewhat compensates for the redistributive effect of the rentier economy, which you could also characterize as theft for similar reasons.
>I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead
And I would like not to have to dedicate 40% of my income to renting property from non-productive (sometimes anti-productive) members of society.
Euthananize the rentier and I'll be happy for you to keep 100% of the wealth you earned with actual work.
That non-productive/anti-productive member of society is the one that keeps your appliances running, makes sure your roof isn't leaking, and fixes your pipes when they leak. They're not just sitting back and watching the money role in. Managing property, moreover doing so profitably, is not a kick back and relax kind of job. You're welcome to buy and maintain your own property if you'd like. It would cost you about as much in the long run.
>That non-productive/anti-productive member of society is the one that keeps your appliances running, makes sure your roof isn't leaking, and fixes your pipes when they leak.
No, that's called a property management company. Around where I live they take ~10% of the rent and pass the rest on to the rentier.
Nope, rent management companies generally take a cut for doing the _Management_ portion. That means drawing up forms, selecting renters, doing background checks etc. The landlord still has to pay for or do repairs. I wouldn't be surprised if some management companies will arrange for repairs to be done as part of what they do, but it still comes out of the landlords pocket.
More like 20% if you don't include labour. Then take out another 40-50% for insurance on the property. Then put the rest into paying the mortgage. Which you admittedly get back, but remember you're doing all the work on the house yourself and houses do wear out over time so that will eat into your margin even more.
EDIT: Don't forget about property taxes! Those eat up a pretty big chunk of the rent too. They're usually a couple hundred a month. Let's be nice and call that 10% although it's generally much larger.
The problem with this is that even if you only just break even as a rent-seeker, you're still creating wealth for yourself and reducing the market of available properties for potential buyers, creating massive negative externalities.
>even if you only just break even as a rent-seeker, you're still creating wealth for yourself
That sounds utterly contradictory.
Landlords provide a service by maintaining and managing properties. They assume most of the risks including damage to the property due to fire and natural disasters. They provide a means for people with little to no credit to afford a roof over their head when they can't get a loan. You are not just paying to live somewhere when you pay rent. You are paying for all of these services and more. If landlords were purely parasites they wouldn't be able to make any money. People would just go around them. Just because you don't like the need for the service they provide doesn't mean they don't provide a service.
>Landlords provide a service by maintaining and managing properties.
We already established that property management companies do this for 10% of the rent.
>They assume most of the risks including damage to the property due to fire and natural disasters.
Should I charitably assume that you've just never heard of insurance?
>They provide a means for people with little to no credit
That 80% of the rent which goes into their pockets after management, insurance and repairs are taken care of is pure, unadulterated parasitism.
Just as payday loans are parasitism.
They both effect net transfers of wealth that, similar to a payday loan. Capitalism grants an entitlement to those with more money to receive an income only because they have more money.
>You are paying for all of these services and more
You are often paying and not even getting these services. Many landlords end up not fixing stuff that breaks.
>If landlords were purely parasites they wouldn't be able to make any money. People would just go around them.
Not possible while they own deeds to the land. Ownership of the land is the part that lets them be parasites.
>Just because you don't like the need for the service they provide doesn't mean they don't provide a service.
Owning land is what gives them the ability to provide a service and charge 5x what it is worth.
If land ownership were illegal and it were simply rented from the government at the exact prevailing unimproved rental value then landlords would become more like an average shop owner rather than massive leeches on productive members of society.
>We already established that property management companies do this for 10% of the rent.
Closer to 30% and that doesn't include maintenance costs and insurance which are _VERY_ significant.
>Should I charitably assume that you've just never heard of insurance?
I've been charitable by not bringing it up. It costs ~40-50% of your gross income from a rental property where I'm from.
>That 80% of the rent which goes into their pockets after...
Point me to where I can make that kind of money and I'll quit my job today. I'm sure I would have absolutely NO trouble at all getting a loan if I was pretty much guaranteed an 80% profit.
>Many landlords end up not fixing stuff that breaks.
If it's in the lease that they will (It's in mine.) Then sue them. If not, fix it or move. I've yet to see a lease that didn't include timely repairs.
>If land ownership were illegal and it were simply rented from the government...
It pretty much is. What do you think property taxes are? When you pay for land you're just providing an incentive for another party to cut their lease short.
>Not possible while they own deeds to the land. Ownership of the land is the part that lets them be parasites.
Land is cheap in a lot of places. Sometimes much cheaper than renting. The barrier to buying land varies, but sometimes renting is a better option.
Offering people a service of housing, without having them to deal with the complexities of property purchase, financing, transaction costs, maintenance and whatnot comes with it.
Except you can pay somebody to take care of all of the 'complexities' and still make a fat profit. I can't pay somebody to take care of setting up and running a software business and make a guaranteed large profit.
That profit is parasitically extracted. No 'work' was done to actually get it - it's merely the privilege that having money gives you.
Some landlords do do the work themselves, which simply means that not all of the income derived from their properties is parasitically extracted - only ~80%.
Instead, they have to deal with the complexities of finding new rental properties and moving on a regular basis in order to keep the rent in check (or just sometimes randomly because their landlord decides to sell up), convincing their landlord to actually do maintenance, put up with the fact that they're not allowed to make any modifications to the property, etc.
I'm not telling anyone what they have to do. I am telling you what they have done and why you can't claim 100% of your salary is based on your own working.
I know for a fact that my forefathers have tried to avoid governments and their meddling fingers as much as possible and have fought really hard in various ways to keep the government of their lives as much as possible.
Thus I owe it to them to keep fighting the government creep towards authoritarian totalitarianism.
What have your forefathers been doing that you are now arguing that 100% of what I have earned and paid taxes on already, should get taxed again at some later date - as a punishment for me not spending it all?
I too don't want government to be too big or too all encompassing but that has nothing to do with whether some sort of taxation could be considered ok.
One things is certain though. If you had to pay for everything yourself you wouldn't be able to afford it. The price of many of the things we consider obvious today are based on many years of accumulated hard work by others than your forefathers which you benefit from today.
So we can discuss whether we pay too much tax, I am fine with that discussion.
But positioning it as all taxation being thievery is both incorrect and simplistic.
Taxation at gunpoint is thievery, no amount of rhetoric can change that.
And don't get me wrong. I have no problems with participating in a community. I have a problem with government setting up barriers and maintaining a monopoly on community.
I have no apriori issue with government offering services, I have an issue with being forced to pay and consume those services, regardless of how (in)efficient they may be.
I am also very much aware that I am only at the end of a long line of people striving for a better future. And nearly all my personal efforts are directed towards fulfilling my obligation towards my forefathers as towards my descendants.
And resisting crazy talk about totalitarian governments as a savior for all our problems is a part of that.
Don't get me wrong - the manifesto above has hardly anything to do with your position, I am merely explaining my own position.
There is no such thing as taxation at gunpoint. That kind of rhetoric is both juvenile, false and largely ignoring reality.
You can choose to pay your taxes or you can choose to move somewhere else where you aren't taxed. You don't have the right to anything anymore than anyone else do. If you don't like the society you live in move somewhere you like or start your own.
Taxation inherently involves coercion which entrenches a power dynamic; power tends to aggregate, so the dynamic gets worse and worse until it becomes unsustainable.
That's backward. People's right to be and to be a part of their communities do not come from their presumed submission to a coercive power. The issue is not collaboration and contribution. The issue is coercion.
I'm of native descent. I was on this continent before this government and there's no way it could exist with my consent.
Peoples rights are either taken, defended or given. There is no such thing as a natural right to anything for any of us.
The US government don't have the right to control the US continent anymore than the British do England or Swedish Sweden and so on. They took it and is defending it through the sheer use of power.
There is no justice in how land is distributed, no right or wrong only the power to claim and hold it.
And so it goes with taxation; there is no right or wrong taxation, it's the price to live in a society for any of us unless we can find a way to change it through the system, build our own or find some isolated place where no one will bother us.
Neither homesteading nor claims of natural laws changes that.
You are welcome to propose some objective/natural "right" criteria. If you do you probably should send it to the Nobel Price committee because that would basically be changing all of philosophy and a number of other areas.
So yeah I guess unfortunately might is the final word in right.
Ideally charities should benefit people besides your progeny.
I really don't understand why you're so vehemently protective of inherited wealth. Do you think it's abhorrent that Bill Gates is voluntarily donating most of his wealth to charity instead of leaving it to his children?
Why do you think an inheritance tax is "totalitarian?" At least, why is it any worse than income taxes?
If you have so many "good solid arguments" on your side, I'd love to hear them. Or answer my question of why they're so much worse than income taxes.
Why do you think that an inheritance tax implies an "authoritarian totalitarian government?" It's a total non sequitur. Does Denmark have an authoritarian government because they impose a high income tax?
Inheritance tax per say does not imply authoritarian totalitarian government. 100% inheritance tax does. Work out the details yourself.
Your conflation of income and inheritance tax is disingenuous.
My crown argument against inheritance tax is that the property being inherited has already been taxed before.
Another would be that taxing inheritance destroys capital base, which no society really wants.
Third would be that governments are really bad at managing capital. There are plenty of issues in the nordic models, where there are already signs that their massive welfare states are going to implode in the next couple of decades.
p.s.: How is me remarking that you have poorly thought out positions an ad-hominem?
> Inheritance tax per say does not imply authoritarian totalitarian government. 100% inheritance tax does. Work out the details yourself.
Why? What is the taxation level where the government is automatically authoritarian? 99%? 90%? 80%?
You can't just assert things and then not provide a causal chain.
What makes double taxation an unmitigated evil? Sales taxes are double taxes, as are taxes on corporate dividends. Yet I don't hear people railing about how they're symptomatic of an authoritarian regime.
> Another would be that taxing inheritance destroys capital base, which no society really wants.
How does it "destroy" capital base? Redistribution of wealth does not equal destruction of wealth.
I agree that many governments do manage their capital poorly. Instead of having government hold on to the capital, I'd say we should collect all estate taxes and channel them into an annual basic income for all citizens. Let the living decide how to use the money.
> p.s.: How is me remarking that you have poorly thought out positions an ad-hominem?
It's not attacking the merits of the argument but instead the thinking of the arguer. I have actually thought about this quite a bit.
I am not going to engage in this discussion anymore as you have convinced me that you are arguing in bad faith.
p.s.: for readers - see what Milton Friedman had to say on the very topic, to a person that seems very much on the same level as some of the contributors to this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4
And their act of believing automatically makes it true and justified?
That is called narcissism.
From my anecdotal experience it is too often people who are themselves near or at 1% trying to justify how the "rich" are taking something away from them.
Where I live, police are reasonable and populace is unarmed.
On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet. And perhaps 2nd amendment may have something to do with that. Along with rest of the constitution.
And as the government gets more tyrannical, with homicide rates at historic lows[0], they seek to remove that right for our 'safety'. I smell bullshit.
The reduction in homicides since 1990 is due to the j-curve in incarceration rates, not the various forms of carry (that for the most part across the US, didn't start in the early 90s).
Washington state also went concealed carry in 1961, and it's crime rate rose and fell with the rest of the country over time. Seriously, it's not an armed population, but an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration.
Here's a pretty good paper titled "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 90s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six Factors That do Not" it's written by Steven Levitt the author of Freakonomics.
>Four factors appear to
explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion.
Other factors often cited as important factors driving
the decline do not appear to have played an important role: the strong economy, changing demographics, innovative policing strategies, gun laws and increased use of capital punishment. In stark contrast, the crime experience between 1973 and 1991 is not well explained by the factors identified in this paper. The real puzzle in my opinion, therefore, is not why crime fell in the 1990s, but why it did not start falling sooner.
Yeah that is a bit of a stretch. Last 50 years have been far from universally peaceful, but even then - this period is an anomaly in European history, not yet the norm.
Hungary is moving in that direction, Poland too, Austria is mixed case and even the western Europe countries are not as hostile towards wanna be authoritarians as before.
I happen to live in Austria, and while the presidential election (between a far right and a far left candidate) stirred up global attention, I can tell you we are not a tyranny or authoritarian state.
I always read about this supposed "freedom" in the US, but what does that mean actually?
I mean here you can drink alcohol in public, wear no t-shirt on the subway, still smoke in many bars, say what you want online, and there are even illegal misdemeanours like kids smoking weed in public that nobody really cares about.
I said that European countries are moving in that direction. Not that we are tyrannical yet. Although France with its permanent Extraordinary Circumstances since Paris ...
But if in 2050 I live in united authoritarian Europe, I won't be surprised the least.
Well the US have headstart before us. But as with electric grid voltage, telephones and wall sockets - we the europeans take their innovation and do it right.
Everything you say is true. But I think that adding yet to the end of each statement is not great stretch.
You know, I don't think europe's immediate future is pretty either.
But I don't think there will be much more oppression of it's citizens. I think the borders will be closed and immigration forced to stop. After that happens people will be content enough to stop leaning further to the right.
That is simply false, corruption and amassing political power is a thing, not that most people can do anything about it. Which is an elephant in the room very few want to address, exactly because it is a hard problem to tackle.
It is interesting however, from here it seem one of the US presidential candidates is much more above the law than any leader in Europe, and no one bats an eye.
"Only" 300.000 black people have been brought to US as slaves. Less than 5% of American families owned slaves.
Also to put things into perspective - between 1MM and 1.3MM white Europeans have been enslaved by Arabs.
What has been done to Native Americans is horrible. Slavery is horrible.
But I have no idea what any of that has to do with the fact that United States is really a one-of the kind country in the world.
I think that Americans should take a long hard look at all the problems on their plate, but they should really stop falling for snake oil peddlers who are selling Identity Politics and trying to benefit from pitting communities against each other.
> "Only" 300.000 black people have been brought to US as slaves. Less than 5% of American families owned slaves.
That's a really odd point to make. From Wikipedia:
"In South Carolina in 1720, about 65% of the population consisted of enslaved people... The number of enslaved people in the US grew rapidly, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census."
Slavery was horrible. And American people fought a bloody war so it could be abolished.
All I am doing is I am setting some perspective. As some people on the left engage in fallacy that every single white person owes them something because some of their ancestors may have been slaves.
Slave population in 1860 was 12%, 65% was for a single state, that was an outlier.
This breaks the HN guidelines. Personal attacks are not allowed here, no matter how wrong someone else is. Instead, please (re)-read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
