Given the inheritance of land, I think quite a lot of people would argue that there is something unfair about having an advantageous position simply because of your ancestors.
Pensions are deferred pay. It is wage theft - thuggery - to promise to pay people X now and Y later then renege on the Y later.
It seems like you very frequently hear the opposite opinion, that it is grievously unfair to not have an advantageous position that you should have inherited because your ancestors' land was taken away.
So I don't think that there is any consensus.
I can't parse all the double negatives in this.
I suspect that once we start designer babies, they would become property too.
Pensions don’t work anymore. It’s an outdated idea. Just like minimum wage, it’s forced penury for the promise of future wealth. This has only enabled unions and the like to exploit everyone including workers.
The children, and indeed everyone else, would probably disagree with you.
> Pensions don’t work anymore. It’s an outdated idea.
So, what of the period from the end of the useful working life until death? Penury?
At the end of the day, it’s speculation. Instead of spitting on the face of millennials and tech and Silicon Valley, they ought to look at unions and the burden of unfunded pension liabilities.
For most public sector employees, the last salary you draw is your pension for life. Law enforcement and fire fighters retire at 50 and are free to work after retirement. Until a few years ago, unclaimed leave could be cashed in..a caltrans driver took home 400+k from leave accumulated over 35 years. Others take the last couple of years off but remain unemployed getting an average of 4-5% hike annually which becomes part of their pension. This isn’t deferred pay. It’s pension spiking. It comes from unfunded liabilities. Which would put every Californian in debt for years to come and will probably never go away until pension schemes are over hauled.
I am thinking UBI of some sort. I would imagine a good way to test UBI would be for those in retirement. By abolishing pension schemes. No pension, higher pay during the working years. It’s fairer to all.
No one is taxed again and again every
year after they buy ..say(and this is
hypothetical)..a pace maker
People should not have to pay tax on their primary residence. I'm fine with taxes on every subsequent property and taxes on rental units on the same property but you should not have to pay a tax for owning your own residence.
My neighbours don't feel the same way, so we have mandatory trash pickup, a.k.a. a tax.
Here is a thought experiment:
No one is taxed again and again every year after they buy ..say(and this is hypothetical)..a pace maker that is made with a very rare and precious metal that is a limited resource.
Of course, once the metal is depleted then others can’t avail it to make new pace makers that would help others live. Does it mean that the original recipients of a life saving device must be taxed every year as their particular illness start affecting new patients.
Think of that chronic illness as lack of access to property. And the pacemaker as the home. And the precious metal used to make the pace maker as the limited resource or commodity that is land.
Early adopters have an advantage. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with it.
What is truly wrong is the punitive financial burden brought about by the mere possession of said asset. It’s incredibly perverse and unfair.
It can be argued that even a nominal property tax is unfair unless it is ploughed back as essential services. Using it for public education is for the greater good and is a mark of a egalitarian society. To use it to funnel money into unfunded pension liabilities of public sector employees under the guidance of unions is unacceptable. To claim it as a right with entitlement is borderline thuggery.