Re: Ungodly wealth

1

A 737!


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
2

I was thinking about this earlier this month when I was doing my taxes. Not that my taxes are very complicated these days since I got rid of the rental property. But I was thinking about the whole "manage your own retirement/health care & etc." policy trend that has largely been pushed by very wealthy people.

Of course they're in favor of that, because now matter how confusing and baroquely complex financial or health care systems get, the rich can always pay someone to navigate for them.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
3

A 737 has an actual navigator.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
4

And IIRC, there's a bunch of research demonstrating that wealthy people can easily lose their sense of empathy

I was just listening to Michael Lewis's podcast and he discussed a study that showed that people in the most expensive cars were the most assholish drivers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/science-rich-people-drive-jerks/312236/


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
5
But for SO MANY reasons, it's now obvious to most right-thinking people that people with grotesque amounts of wealth should be pillaged.

So we're not going to shoot them?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:26 AM
horizontal rule
6

Before the hunting party even starts?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
7

he discussed a study that showed that people in the most expensive cars were the most assholish drivers.

In terms of cost per mile, a London taxi is about the most expensive car in the world, so... yeah, that works out.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
8

Obama's shittier book had a thing about what Senators miss when they get to fly on private jets.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
9

I saw a sitting House member on a commercial flight twice.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
10

I just finished Becoming. I really liked it until they were in the White House, and then it was dull, dull, dull.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
11

Somebody lobbied him while boarding.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
12

4: A good working definition of driving like an arsehole is accelerating too hard and driving too fast and consequently braking too hard. what's one of the biggest things you can buy more of in a car? Acceleration and speed. In a real sense, buying a more expensive car is buying potential arseholeship.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
13

There's a large portion of the luxury vehicle market here that's about bigger and more bigger without making the engine that much bigger.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
14

10: Yeah, just one orgy after another.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
15

I'm on board with having a maximum wealth. $10 million? $20 million? We can be generous and index the cutoff to inflation.

Some people will complain that this'll make capitalism less efficient because less motivation to innovate yadda yadda. We just need to find useless high-status positional goods without externalities for the hyper-competitive to waste their energy on.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
16

12.1 How is accelerating too fast assuming no one is in front of you and you're not endangering anyone else driving like an asshole? And if you're breaking too hard you're not a good driver.

This thread by Abigail Disney on the minimum wage compared to CEO pay was fantastic


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
17

16: agreed. Driving like an arsehole can be done in any vehicle. You can do it very well in a Transit van which doesn't exactly leap off the blocks with the speed of an Usain Bolt who has just been informed that there's a sale on at Games Workshop. (Usain Bolt is an fanatical tabletop wargamer. Prove me wrong.)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
18

It's one of the joys of life if you have to have a car and why I bought a used Mini JCW (which was not very expensive).


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
19

And it's a shame Halford isn't around anymore to either appreciate my purchase or tell me I fucked up and should have bought something else.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
20

I looked it up for other reasons a week ago. $1.38M in wealth is the cut-off for the top ten percent. It also marks the divider between the bottom 90% holding 30% of America's wealth and the top 10% holding 70% of the nation's wealth. Then I thought to myself, I have much less than $1.38 in wealth and I live a very pleasant life. I would not feel bad, forcing everyone with more to live at my lifestyle. It is all de-growth-y and shit, so they might have to find enjoyment in non-consumption but if I can do it, so can they.

Then I thought to myself, would I like to have 70% of the nation's wealth on hand to do useful things with? I realized that I would.

In my proposal, everything more than $1.5M (rounding up!) gets confiscated.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
21

I further amused myself with schemes in which people could be deputized to find pockets of wealth over $1.5M, and by presenting information about these stashes to the IRS, could be awarded a portion of the hoarded/seized wealth. Seems motivating!

Then I thought further, about making Hoarding a crime. My thoughts wandered further afield and I began to consider a new kind of crime, Extinction, that the worst perpetrators of climate change could be charged with.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
22

Hoarding bounty recipients get a percentage of the money but, lest they become Hoarders themselves, must spend it all within a year, Brewster's Millions style.

We're going to have some dope parties.


Posted by: Lambent Cactus | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
23

Well, they are still subject to the $1.5M cap.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
24

https://media.giphy.com/media/jNdw5Qmy5MOpq/giphy.gif


Posted by: Lambent Cactus | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
25

9. Cattle class or business?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
26

Confiscation isn't enough. You'll need reeducation also I think. Maybe some kind of arrangement towards getting in touch with a farm worker's life via a work program.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
27

25: Too small to have first class.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
28

I feel like the reeducation would happen by itself.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
29

Then I thought further, about making Hoarding a crime. My thoughts wandered further afield and I began to consider a new kind of crime, Extinction, that the worst perpetrators of climate change could be charged with.

I'm on board.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
30

Can't they use the existing reeducation centers?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
31

It would have to be Attempted Extinction, because jesus fuck, humans are swarming, not extinct. But the crime itself would be extinction, whether they manage to follow through with it or not.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
32

Well, we're causing a mass extinction of lots of other animals. Exacerbating that wave could be a crime. We could allow a more tenuous connection to harming endangered species.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
33

No more encouraging the pandas to smoke.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
34

33: But I'm increasing their quality of life!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
35

Pandas need to take up vaping.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
36

Since nobody will let them get married in a church, they've decided to stop fucking. That's why they are endangered.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
37

God, they're such millenials.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
38

9. I saw Elizabeth Warren on the DCA-BOS shuttle a few years ago. She was in the front section though.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
39

I bet that trying to date while having the last name "Disnety" leads to a whole bunch of "Magic Kingdom" jokes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
40

30. I was thinking of Mao's Down to the Countryside Movement. My 26 was contemptuous.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
41

Oh. Missed it. Sorry.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
42

For whatever it's worth, I'd be happy with substantially higher capital gains taxes, estate taxes, carbon taxes, and a functioning IRS and powerful EPA. Making up new crimes and power fantasies about eliminating political enemies make me nervous. I understand 20 and 21 as venting rather than policy proposals.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
43

I believe the actual policy proposal was pillaging as promulgated by heebie.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
44

I'm with 42, I think we should have way higher taxes on rich people but only so that we can give money and services to poor people, not because the rich people themselves are bad. I dislike Bernie/AOC-style messaging where every social problem is the fault of some group of rich malefactors who get called out by name and booed at.


Posted by: torque | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
45

Not looking to be absolved or have the concepts be treated as venting.

I am completely in favor of confiscating all wealth over $1.5M/person (which would include people I'm close to). I would also give some thought to both hoarding and extinction as potential crimes. If by "eliminating political enemies", you mean charging people with crimes (even new crimes!) and running them through the criminal justice system, I see no problem. I mean, the crime of hoarding is easy to correct. And climate change perpetrators should be punished; my preference would be for them to feel the suffering they're causing, but being tried for a crime and punished that way would suffice.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
46

45. No crime is easy to correct. This is because investigation and punishment are appalling cudgels, both nearly always botched. Laws work because there's consensus that they should be obeyed. Feel free to have the last word.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
47

You're setting the bar pretty low if "unforgivable wealth" equates to "owns a medium sized house in a major city" though. You can have $1.5m in property assets no problem without being obscenely wealthy. All it means is that you have a two bedroom house in Islington.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
48

You're setting the bar pretty low if "unforgivable wealth" equates to "owns a medium sized house in a major city" though. You can have $1.5m in property assets no problem without being obscenely wealthy. All it means is that you have a two bedroom house in Islington.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
49

18/19: I appreciate the purchase. Also, no rate of acceleration is inappropriately high if there's nothing in front of you!

Are we confiscating above $1.5M in the US? My mom's care is about $85K per year, not including exciting medical disasters like ER visits for falls. 24 hour in home care is significantly more. The cost in their atate is much lower than the coasts. She has been in a memory care facility for about six years now, I think? She might live another 3. I thank the god I don't believe in that my parents had roughly $2M of assets when my father retired. Money was starting to look tight, even with that, but my grandmother's house in California and her savings just infused enough money that he is pretty sure he will have enough to last until his mid-90s (the age his father and grandfather died). I mean, if we are fantasizing, let's fix this monstrous sytem, but until then, I'm going to say $2M per person probably gives you a UMC retirement at 65 and a safety net for lengthy illness.


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
50

You're setting the bar pretty low if "unforgivable wealth" equates to "owns a medium sized house in a major city" though. You can have $1.5m in property assets no problem without being obscenely wealthy. All it means is that you have a two bedroom house in Islington.

I had the same thought and then quickly realized that if there was a wealth limit of $1.5M/person, you would see a rapid change in real estate prices in major cities (which, of course, means that it's politically impossible). You just wouldn't have $2M homes in that world.

Or, you'd see a case in which [famous entertainer] would form a partnership with [10 people with no assets] to buy a $10M house, in which they sign an agreement so that [famous entertainer] got full and exclusive rights to use the house and everybody else got $1M in paper assets.

There's also the question of how this interacts with foreign ownership (in two ways: first rich people seeking foreign citizenship in a tax haven, secondly when the real estate market in Seattle collapses you'll see even more people from China buying houses there, and you might see a bunch of people from Vancouver buying second homes in Seattle if the prices fall enough) .


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
51

You just wouldn't have $2M homes in that world.

Right. A lot of wealth held as property would be unmade, rather than confiscated.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
52

50. There would be committees of people to decide who gets to live where. Sort of like HOAs, but now just fine because everyone means well. There might be a wait in some cases. Your past campaign contributions are a public record, btw. Seriously, proposals very much like these have already been tried.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
53

Back to pillaging.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
54

Don't precommit to only a few pitchforks, you may run low as the process unfolds.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
55

Is someone hoarding them?!?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
56

I believe the actual policy proposal was pillaging as promulgated by heebie

"It Takes a Pillage."


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
57

Pirates of the Caring Being.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 5:34 PM
horizontal rule
58

It's been so long, I thought you'd never call.


Posted by: Opinionated Commisar | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 5:38 PM
horizontal rule
59

Don't turn around.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
60

That's my line.


Posted by: Opinionated Commisar | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
61

It's Falco's line.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 5:49 PM
horizontal rule
62

Bourgeoisie, always so clever with your references.


Posted by: Opinionated Commisar | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
63

I mean, if we are fantasizing, let's fix this monstrous sytem, but until then, I'm going to say $2M per person probably gives you a UMC retirement at 65 and a safety net for lengthy illness.

Well, full-on single-payer for all health care, personal care, etc. is much more popular than wealth confiscation, so it seems hard to imagine the latter would ever come before the former.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 6:27 PM
horizontal rule
64

I'm all for soaking the rich, and I agree that 'every billionaire is a policy failure' but I draw the line at exterminating the kulaks.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
65

My family being in a similar state to 49 is why I also started with a higher number. These sort of things change you.

63 is of course correct.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
66

Don't stand by the pipe. I'll need it later.


Posted by: Opinionated Commisar | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
67

18: CTS-V Wagon or GTFO.


Posted by: OPINIONATED IMAGINED HALFORD | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
68

63 is a good point: telling that even someone coming up with a plan for massive wealth destruction / confiscation can't bring herself to imagine the NHS happening in her own country.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-23-19 11:08 PM
horizontal rule
69

68: Of course I can imagine it happening; I just figured the question was "what's the number that means you have more money than you need to have a pretty good life?" and not "in your utopian society with healthcare, eldercare, and a UBI, how much money means etc etc?" For Boomers at retirement, financial advisors recommend having about $1M per person in assets. It's unachievable for lots of people, but I thought it was worth pointing out (after seeing suggestions that we confiscate anything over $1.5M as "too rich") that in the US, even that kind of money may well run out, and that at retirement, that kind of bank balance is enough to have a nice retirement, maybe own a small boat, take a trip or two a year, and weather most disasters that come with aging and failing health. Many folks with longterm chronic illness do get government assistance (Medicaid, social security, etc), so there's something of a floor on how bad running out of money can be, but when you run out, life gets harder.

In an era of fully automated gay space communism, I guess you could confiscate everything.


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 3:35 AM
horizontal rule
70

I think we should concentrate on those wealthy enough to have multi-person, live-in domestic help. The Butlerian Jihad.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 3:40 AM
horizontal rule
71

18, 67: Did Halford flounce memorably or just sort of fade at the end of the record?


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 3:41 AM
horizontal rule
72

70 is outstanding.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 3:42 AM
horizontal rule
73

71: Just faded away.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 3:49 AM
horizontal rule
74

70: well played.

Interesting fact: current total net wealth in the US, including real estate, is around $300k per person. Roughly 40% of that is real estate (less for whites, more for Hispanics and blacks).


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 4:53 AM
horizontal rule
75

That's why fraudulent and deceptive home equity loans are a local custom.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:08 AM
horizontal rule
76

Not "pillaging". Being required to contribute to the infrastructure of society at an appropriate level.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:35 AM
horizontal rule
77

Blume!


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:44 AM
horizontal rule
78

76. Where "infrastructure of society" means "no-show jobs for our political supporters."


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:52 AM
horizontal rule
79

Do people still talk about that seriously in other places? Maybe in Lower Massachusetts. The cranky elderly here complain that the road crews don't work hard enough, but I think it would be impossible to have a no show job in this day and age. Government employees can't do things that I can do, like work from home, to avoid that appearance.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:02 AM
horizontal rule
80

Cattle class or business?

Members of Congress go home multiple times a month in addition to their other travel, so they pretty much all have the miles to get upgraded to first class. Their travel allowance isn't enough to buy a lot of first class tickets, though of course most of them are personally wealthy.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
81

It's really hard to get a first class seat out of Lincoln, Nebraska. So is getting a beer after you've gone through security. On the plus side, it's really easy to find baggage claim.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
82

I think I'd put the personal wealth limit a little higher than $1.5 M (mostly because of retirement savings) but subject it to a wealth tax (and of course raise top income tax rates and eliminate the egregious loopholes).


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:14 AM
horizontal rule
83

Houses are really cheap. Retirement is what's expensive.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:24 AM
horizontal rule
84

Retirement is a fictional construct.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:25 AM
horizontal rule
85

Being too disabled to work on account of age-related issues is very real.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
86

85: Definitely. Then I'm at the mercy of the state.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:30 AM
horizontal rule
87

86: But how can I worry about that knowing that at this very moment there is bright green gum (apparently, could be silly putty, I suppose) stuck on the seat of my pants? I guess I have to be more careful choosing a seat on the bus.

The worst (?) thing is that the most likely scenario seems to me to be that someone put it on the seat there on purpose as some kind of sick joke.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:39 AM
horizontal rule
88

Ohio humor is very broad.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:42 AM
horizontal rule
89

Confiscatory taxes, including wealth and estate taxes, is low imagination. A. Disney would be a lot less wealthy if the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act was repealed. Patents on software and computer processes might be outlawed. (Algorithms are a lot like physical laws, and a physical law cannot be patented.) We might as well get rid of patents on genes, too.

John Quiggin talks about predistribution. See also Robert Lee Hale (1923). Or recent books by Dean Baker and Robert Reich.


Posted by: Robert | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:50 AM
horizontal rule
90

81: Or out of Biloxi, Mississippi on a Sunday morning. Or at least it was in 1986, which is how I wound up in a smallish plane a few rows in front of Van Halen.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
91

Did you get an autograph?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
92

Were there yellow M&Ms?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
93

When I worked at the flower store in high school, we had a standing order for flower delivery on Fridays to Van Halen's house.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
94

From his former teacher.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
95

I thought the problem was brown m&ms.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
96

93: Eddie? Alex? Or did the whole band share a house?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
97

I bet when it rained, that house was really slippery. I bet they shared groceries and then got mad when someone ate the last M&M and said, "Oh you ate one too?"


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
98

95: I am ashamed. I was too literal with canaries in coal mines.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
99

Confiscatory taxes, including wealth and estate taxes, is low imagination. A. Disney would be a lot less wealthy if the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act was repealed

I guess it is low imagination not to consider changing the past.

There are definitely measures a society can take to prevent individuals and families from accumulating great wealth. It's another question what a society does that already has individuals and families that have acquired great wealth.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
100

Thanks to the War on Coal, the miners don't go down to feed the canaries and they'll all be dead soon.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
101

I think Eddie.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
102

I guess it is low imagination not to consider changing the past.

I do not understand this. (Maybe I should not have used "was".) If Congress repealed the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act right now or anytime in the future, the value of Disney stock would immediately drop and members of the Disney family would be immediately less wealthly.


Posted by: Robert | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
103

101: That makes sense. That was probably when he was married to Valerie Bertinelli.

102: Sorry, that was a stupid misunderstanding on my part. But maybe the larger point holds - it seems to me more direct action would be required if we really want to break up huge accumulations of wealth.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
104

Randon Guest: "Oh wow, those are beautiful flowers. Where were they grown?"
Van Halen: "PANAMA!"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
105

Yes! It was when he was married to Valerie Bertinelli.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
106

She had such great hair.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
107

Are you saying that's a wig she has now?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
108

Random guest: Ugh this staircase is missing a few stairs. However will I get down?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
109

79. There are still plenty of jobs like that in the MA bureaucracy. Technically they aren't "no-show" in that you are supposed to attend a meeting now and then, if you feel like it. Those are the white-collar, managerial version of no-show jobs. Blue-collar workers can't get no-show jobs as easily. On the other hand, we still have the law that all road work has to have a "detail" cop there to make sure all the donuts are eaten everything is going along safely. This is usually performed sitting in one's car. I find it hard to believe PA is any different, except in the details of the grifting.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
110

Death to strikeovers!


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
111

In Pittsburgh, there is a cop at roadwork sites. I don't think it's grift because I've learned there is no road so very obviously closed some local won't try to drive down it while shouting at somebody trying to stop them.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
112

There's someone at my institution with a no-show job who actually shows up for it. He just doesn't do anything.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
113

And reader, that man is me.


Posted by: Opinionated 47-Year Old Man Responsible For All Unfogged Comments | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
114

That's not true. I'm very productive.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
115

Or are we all the same age?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
116

I always find this weird. I'm signing the kids up for YMCA sleepaway camp. Here's one of the questions:

Please select the category the best represents your total household gross income during the past 12 months:

a. Less than $5000
b. $5000-$9999
c. $9999-$14999
d. $15,000 - $24,999
e. $25,000 - $34,999
f. $35,000 - $49,999
g. Greater than $50,000

I mean, it's just awfully fine-tuning the shades of poverty. There are three categories for people with one parent earning at or less than minimum wage. And then lumping together a whole lot of ranges of wealth. Not that the fanciest people go to YMCA, but wouldn't you still want that data broken out?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
117

There's also a tiered pricing scheme, which you select on the honor system. That question about the household income always primes me to pick the most expensive tier. Maybe those wily guys have done this deliberately.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
118

Yep


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
119

There's probably some guy who is asking for another category because he makes $25,100 and does want to have to pay as much a s somebody making $34,999.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:29 PM
horizontal rule
120

Not that the fanciest people go to YMCA, but wouldn't you still want that data broken out?

I think it's basically: if your income falls within the range of A-F, we can offer financial assistance on a sliding scale. If your income is above G, we don't care whether it's $51K or $510K, we can't offer assistance and you'll have to pay the full fee.

Not that the $510K per annum crowd send their kids to the Y, of course, but I think that's the idea? That is, they don't want a full and complete financial picture for every child who attends camp, they just want to know where their money should go?

My son used to attend a YMCA sleepaway camp in western NJ, which ran (still runs) a lot of fundraising campaigns to enable kids from lower-income NYC households to attend summer camp. I was impressed by how seriously they took this as part of their mission.


Posted by: Just Plain Jane | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:34 PM
horizontal rule
121

When we're discussing the Disney corporation, it is entirely appropriate to consider redistributing 50% of shareholders' wealth by snapping one's fingers, and/or redistributing wealth by traveling back in time.


Posted by: Unimaginative | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:50 PM
horizontal rule
122

Pass a one day estate tax of 100%, unfreeze Walt on that day, shoot him, get it all.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
123

Now you're just being goofy.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
124

"Your honor, I didn't say she was crazy."


Posted by: Opinionated Mickey Mouse | Link to this comment | 04-24-19 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
125

91: I did! On a barf bag.

92: There were not.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 04-25-19 1:38 AM
horizontal rule
126

Obviously. Else Doug would not be with us.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-25-19 2:49 AM
horizontal rule
127

We'd updog, though.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-25-19 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
128

89 is right on.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 04-25-19 9:07 PM
horizontal rule