EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Why would one need to 'correct' it?

It's their business, so it's theirs to do with as they please.

And I really don't think that adding yet another tax is really the way to go.

This thread has nothing to do with taxes.

It's about government corruption, appointing unqualified friends and relatives to government positions in the southern EU countries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49146152

The article which many of you obviously will not read, points to the southern EU countries as rife with nepotism. These are the same countries which are today protesting austerity. Could it be that their governments are not up to par? Corruption allowed to go unchecked lead to these countries financial problems and subsequent "punishment" from EU leadership? Could the people rioting in Greece today be protesting corruption in their government as much if not more than the pain of the austerity policies being forced against their EU membership?

Perhaps the Brits and Yanks are just better at covering this type of corruption up, but I do sense that things are less above board in the southern EU countries. Any government known to ignore nepotism systemically, in my opinion, is eventually going to become dysfunctional. Sorry if this is personal for any of you.

10 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

@cbae:

Terrible terrible idea.

1) you force tax on something of unstable value.

2) like you said, people will sell large amount of inherited stock as "Predicted". That opens up so much problems, including making the stock very unstable.

3) back to point one. Tax on something could potentially be zero is just ridiculous.

1) Nobody forces you to accept an inheritance. You can disclaim it. And nobody forces you to take ownership of the inheritance on an exact date. You can choose to accept it on the day that the stock is not zero, and sell enough to cover the taxes on the entire amount. If you are afraid that the value is going to go to zero from the time that you accept the inheritance and the you are able to sell it, then you have the option to have the estate sell the stock first and just receive the proceeds as cash, which would then be taxed.

2) You need only sell enough to cover the tax, and you never have fewer than 105 days to sell the stock before you pay Uncle Sam. Since you would also "inherit" the original cost basis of the stock, if you sold the stock below the cost basis price, you'd not only get the proceeds, you'd have loss carry over. This means you'd not only not have to pay any taxes on those stocks, you'd reduce your tax liability on other stock gains for the year. The basic principle behind this is that stocks should be taxed exactly the way it would be had the deceased sold the stock and gifted it to the beneficiary.

As for stock stability, shareholders of a given stock aren't going to all die at once to cause instability to a stock. 

3) The same thing happens if you sell a particular stock for a huge gain and then turn around and purchase another stock that ends up going to zero. You'll have a huge tax liability on what you sold, but what you ended up with is worthless. Sucks for you, but you'll have a nice loss carry over other years when you do sell stock for a profit.

11 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

This thread has nothing to do with taxes.

It's about government corruption, appointing unqualified friends and relatives to government positions in the southern EU countries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49146152

Yes, but I only mentioned a specific kind of tax that would help to correct the "nepotistic" effect of passing ownership of a company in the form of stock from one generation to another.

@cbae: I had a rich friend wondering if his mother would pass before the inheritance tax cut in the USA expired... what a world.

@JohnAskew:

I couldn't care less about nepotism in the free market. It's the business's own free choice and they are not hurting anyone (maybe themselves) with this practice. Government nepotism is an entirely different ballgame. Government does not come by it's wealth by producing something consumers want to buy, they simply take what they need. They end up hurting their country and that's really bad.

It's also why a lot of government nepotism is taking place in the southern countries. It's access to easy money. And you would like your family and friends to benefit from this, rather then your neighbor.

The southern countries are now in so much trouble, that it's beginning to show just how much of these family and friends are in office. Never ruling against one another, protecting each other. We also have a some of it in the EU, where PA's are often family members and the EC is appointed, not chosen.

The classification corruption is a valid one, even though I don't think they are breaking any laws. They are squandering public funds for their own luxury (my funds also, since we've bailed them out).

The solution to all this, I think, is not to ban government nepotism, but to shrink the government. Make it profitable to go out and work. You have to solve the problem where it originates.

9 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew:

I couldn't care less about nepotism in the free market. It's the business's own free choice and they are not hurting anyone (maybe themselves) with this practice. Government nepotism is an entirely different ballgame. Government does not come by it's wealth by producing something consumers want to buy, they simply take what they need. They end up hurting their country and that's really bad.

It's also why a lot of government nepotism is taking place in the southern countries. It's access to easy money. And you would like your family and friends to benefit from this, rather then your neighbor.

The southern countries are now in so much trouble, that it's beginning to show just how much of these family and friends are in office. Never ruling against one another, protecting each other. We also have a some of it in the EU, where PA's are often family members and the EC is appointed, not chosen.

The classification corruption is a valid one, even though I don't think they are breaking any laws. They are squandering public funds for their own luxury (my funds also, since we've bailed them out).

The solution to all this, I think, is not to ban government nepotism, but to shrink the government. Make it profitable to go out and work. You have to solve the problem where it originates.

Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.

Nepotism is a source of corruption in government and must be corrected. Shrinking government only means fewer corrupt officials, correction is required for a government to actually do its work. I'm going to say it: "size doesn't matter".

I am %100 in support of correcting government whereever it is corrupt. One size fits all.

So perhaps world order originates with weapon and military capability so that those superior nations can just print money to bail themselves out and where other nations are just flat broke and have no leverage with which to print money. I don't know. Regardless, government corruption is never ok.

8 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.

Nepotism is a source of corruption in government and must be corrected. Shrinking government only means fewer corrupt officials, correction is required for a government to actually do its work. I'm going to say it: "size doesn't matter".

Yes, less corruption.

You will always have crooked men. The first step is to proactively prevent them from being crooked, take the power away from them. Then when the problem is more manageable, prevent it reactively with a force of law.

I am %100 in support of correcting government whereever it is corrupt. One size fits all.

If democratically elected by the citizens of that nation, do you think the US should bomb it?

So perhaps world order originates with weapon and military capability so that those superior nations can just print money to bail themselves out and where other nations are just flat broke and have no leverage with which to print money. I don't know. Regardless, government corruption is never ok.

Corruption can only exist when you can coerce. If you use a military to coerce, corruption will emerge in the military.

@Maddus Mattus: I see little logic in your reply. Bombing? Corruption in the military? What?

@JohnAskew: It was in response to your last paragraph where you presented an argument for military world order, combined with the statement that you want a corrupt free government.

33 seconds ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

No, it's just one that fitted your original viewpoint. Cornyism (for heaven's sake, use the right term) is rife in politics - it's a natural by-product of a party system. And no-where is it more evident that the US, with it's limitation of two parties. I go back once again to the Kennedy and Bush families. Two families where people are groomed into politics simple because of family connections and nothing to do with any sort of competence.

And smaller government doesn't really help magically address it IMO. Smallest government of all? Dictatorship, and well, cronyism is, of course, there.

Nepotism includes friends, not just family. Cronyism is more along the lines of political factions, not personal relationships. You get the terms straight.

Nepotism means appointed by family and friends. The USA has elections, there is not appointing by those in the elected positions.

FYI, Jeb Bush is in Florida and is continually thwarted by the Republican Party from being a Presidential candidate, due to his personality and lack of capability. So there is an example where you are wrong. Can you count how many Kennedy's have been pressured by the Democratic Party to run for office? Many more than ever did. It is not a parent handing the mantle to offspring, so it is not nepotism at all. You keep pointing to political families as nepotistic in the USA, but that argument is wrong on two fronts I point out right here. You're wrong.

Although you can cast 'cronyism' upon these political families, I've already pointed out that there are few here willing to endure the debacle of public service, especially the Presidency. John Kerry and Mitt Romney are examples of narcissistic rich guys acting pompous and being rejected, but that big ego is nearly a requirement for the hard work and personal attacks doled out to sitting Presidents. Don't ask me to do it.

Smaller government doesn't help at all. Reduce a white wine sauce and its simply more concentrated. "Smaller government" is conservative vomit.

My question is not about cronyism but about nepotism, where nepotism means 'personal relationship' with the appointee by the appointer. Cronyism is not the topic for me.

When I went to Russia I experienced culture shock, in 1994. I am very curious about Spain and Italy and Greece and how they have mucked up so very thoroughly compared to UK and DE. Government corruptions.

15 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

And smaller government doesn't really help magically address it IMO. Smallest government of all? Dictatorship, and well, cronyism is, of course, there.

The size of government is not just dependent on it's form. Dictatorships can still have an extensive government.

Also, I'm not saying it's the ultimate answer to the problem. I'm saying that it reduces the problem to more manageable proportions. The problem the southern countries are in, is due to the vast size of the problem, which makes it difficult for any change to occur.

5 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

Any political system where politicians band together to leverage power as a group will have cronyism.

That's why I would like to see elections for positions, rather then parties.

@cbae:

FYI, your point two doesn't seem to be related to my point two. I wasn't talking about tax. I was talking about predicted transactions caused by the forced tax. The consequences of predicted transaction usually are bad all around.

as for wanting to sip on riches, change the law whatever you like. I dont get involved in politics anyway.

24 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

Lets do a dictionary lookup. Again.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism

: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship

*sigh* Come on, it's not hard. The clue is in the nep part - nepot -> nephew in latin.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nepotism?s=t