If I was more smarterer....

[SEC=UGA]

(National Review) A once civil and orderly England was torn apart by rioting and looting last week -- at first by mostly minority youths, but eventually by young Brits in general. This summer, a number of American cities have witnessed so-called "flash mobs" -- mostly African-American youths who swarm at prearranged times to loot stores or randomly attack those of other races and classes. The mayhem has reignited an old debate in the West: Are such criminally minded young Americans and Britons turning to violence in protest over inequality, poverty, and bleak opportunities?

 

 

The Left often blames cutbacks in the tottering welfare state and high unemployment. In this view, the havoc and mayhem visited upon us are a wake-up call in an age of insolvency: Do not cut entitlements or we will reap the whirlwind. Instead, tax the affluent and redistribute more of their earnings to those who have been unfairly deprived.

 

The Right counters that the problem is not too few state subsidies, but far too many. The growing -- and now unsustainable -- dole of the last half-century has eroded self-reliance and personal initiative. The logical result is a dependent underclass that spans generations and becomes ever unhappier and more unsatisfied the more it is given from others. The rioters were not fighting for survival. Today's looters have plenty to eat. That is why they target sneaker and electronics stores -- to enjoy the perks of life they either cannot or will not work for.

 

We might at least agree on a few facts behind the violence. First, much of the furor is because poverty is now seen as a relative, not an absolute, condition. Per capita GDP is $47,000 in the U.S. and $35,000 in Britain. In contrast, those rioting in impoverished Syria (where per capita GDP is about $5,000) or Egypt (about $6,000) worry about going to bed hungry or being shot for expressing their views -- not about wanting a new BlackBerry or a pair of Nikes. Inequality, not Tiny Tim-like poverty, is the new Western looter's complaint.

 

So when President Obama lectures us about fat cats with corporate jets, he doesn't mean that wealthy people's greed prevents the lower classes from flying on affordable commercial jets -- only that a chosen few in luxury aircraft, like himself, reach their destinations a little more quickly and easily. The lament today is not having what someone richer has -- instead of lacking elemental shelter, food, or electricity. The problem is not that the bath water in Philadelphia is not as hot as in Martha's Vineyard, but that the conditions under which it is delivered are, in comparison, far more basic and ordinary.

 

Second, the wealthy have not set an example of hard work and self-discipline leading to well-deserved success and the good life. Recently, a drunken, affluent young prospect for the U.S. ski team urinated on a sleeping eleven-year-old during a transcontinental flight. And the more the psychodramas of drones like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, or some members of the British royal family, become headline news, the more we see boredom and corruption among the pampered elite. The behavior of John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or Arnold Schwarzenegger does not teach us that good habits on the part of elite public figures follow from well-deserved riches and acclaim -- but rather that with today's wealth and power often comes license and decadence.

 

Third, Communism may be dead, but Marxist-inspired materialism still measures the good life only by equal access to "things." We can argue whether those who loot a computer store are spoiled or oppressed. But even a person in faded jeans and a worn T-shirt can find all sorts of spiritual enrichment at no cost in either a museum or a good book. Have we forgotten that in our affluent postmodern society, being poor is often an impoverishment of the mind, and not necessarily the result of a cruel physical world?

 

Finally, there is far too much emphasis on government as the doting, problem-solving parent. What made Western civilization rich and liberal was not just free-market capitalism and well-founded constitutional government, but the role of family, community, and church in reminding the emancipated individual in an affluent society that he should not always do what he is legally permitted to. Destroy these bridles, ridicule the old shame culture of the past, and we end up with unchecked appetites -- as we are now witnessing from smoldering London to the flash mobs of Wisconsin.

 

Our high-tech angry youths are deprived not just because their elders put at risk their future subsidies, but also because they were not taught what real wealth is -- and where and how it is obtained and should be used.

 

Bio: Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the editor of "Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome," and the author of "The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern."

[BeeR]

Agreed - but he's spittin in the wind. He mentioned black gangs and churches, for crying out loud. He is clearly a racist and fundamentalist. The beast!

[mrip]

Finally, there is far too much emphasis on government as the doting, problem-solving parent. What made Western civilization rich and liberal was not just free-market capitalism and well-founded constitutional government, but the role of family, community, and church in reminding the emancipated individual in an affluent society that he should not always do what he is legally permitted to. Destroy these bridles, ridicule the old shame culture of the past, and we end up with unchecked appetites -- as we are now witnessing from smoldering London to the flash mobs of Wisconsin.

 

 

This is where he lost me.

[SEC=UGA]

Finally, there is far too much emphasis on government as the doting, problem-solving parent. What made Western civilization rich and liberal was not just free-market capitalism and well-founded constitutional government, but the role of family, community, and church in reminding the emancipated individual in an affluent society that he should not always do what he is legally permitted to. Destroy these bridles, ridicule the old shame culture of the past, and we end up with unchecked appetites -- as we are now witnessing from smoldering London to the flash mobs of Wisconsin.

 

 

This is where he lost me.

 

Yeah, he was going pretty good til then.

 

Though, if one looks at communities/groups who are more affluent and more highly educated, they typically come from "good" families, communities and in some cases religious backgrounds.

 

I think what he meant to say here is that, there has been a decay in the family and community structure that has led to a deterioration in the moral trajectory of many in this country. The argument typically goes something like this: Back in the day, parents disciplined their children, there was also fear that the community may ostracize a family if they or their children broke the understood moral code of that community. At the time, community was very imoportant, individualism, not so much. Since we have moved into an era where people are more individualistic and less likely to come from a two parent household their has been a cultural breakdown and this has caused a deterioration of the culture of this country... or something like that.

 

Church fits in there as another one of the components to creating a moral society, in his view.

 

Intereestingly enough, there is an article today that states people with a college degree are more likely to attend church than those of lesser education. I found that interesting.

[BeeR]

Yeah, he was going pretty good til then.

 

Though, if one looks at communities/groups who are more affluent and more highly educated, they typically come from "good" families, communities and in some cases religious backgrounds.

 

I think what he meant to say here is that, there has been a decay in the family and community structure that has led to a deterioration in the moral trajectory of many in this country. The argument typically goes something like this: Back in the day, parents disciplined their children, there was also fear that the community may ostracize a family if they or their children broke the understood moral code of that community. At the time, community was very imoportant, individualism, not so much. Since we have moved into an era where people are more individualistic and less likely to come from a two parent household their has been a cultural breakdown and this has caused a deterioration of the culture of this country... or something like that.

 

Church fits in there as another one of the components to creating a moral society, in his view.

Exactly.....our society's problems are many and complex but IMO that is the gist of it. But that's not to imply "religious people" are inherently more moral or rip on people from single parent families or any such thing.

 

Basically the more isolationist we become - and we seen hell-bent on it, IMO largely due to technology paving the way with glittery trinkets - the more we by definition become less "communal" and we as a society begin to deteriate as not only our social skills decline but even our desire in that regard.

[Ursa Majoris]

I got as far as this and stopped:

 

So when President Obama lectures us about fat cats with corporate jets, he doesn't mean that wealthy people's greed prevents the lower classes from flying on affordable commercial jets -- only that a chosen few in luxury aircraft, like himself, reach their destinations a little more quickly and easily.

 

Total bull - the point that Obama and many others were making is that there's a tax break attached to a private jet and that is ridiculous. The fact of owning one is neither here nor there, just the fact that it's subsidized by the taxpayer.

[BeeR]

True but the broader point(s) IMO remain.

[westvirginia]

I got as far as this and stopped:

 

 

 

Total bull - the point that Obama and many others were making is that there's a tax break attached to a private jet and that is ridiculous. The fact of owning one is neither here nor there, just the fact that it's subsidized by the taxpayer.

 

It's an expense of doing business. Corporations get the same breaks for owning locomotives. So a jet for executivesisn't a legitimate business expense, but a limo/driver/executive assistant is? Where do you draw the line? It's because it makes good class warfare, kommrade

[rbmcdonald]

It's an expense of doing business. Corporations get the same breaks for owning locomotives. So a jet for executivesisn't a legitimate business expense, but a limo/driver/executive assistant is? Where do you draw the line? It's because it makes good class warfare, kommrade

 

Under current regulations the cost of a corporate jet can be depreciated over 5 years, while one would assume that the actual useful life of a plane is much longer than 5 years. However, that is not to say that corporate jets are the only area where IRS depreciation rules are a little screwy. One of the problems with the Republican stance of no new taxes, is it is a very simplistic response (that plays very well to their base) to a very complex issue. As an example, the federal government has multiple programs that help subsidies rent for lower income people. Cutting one of these programs would be a "spending cut". A person that lives in a $3 million house, can deduct all of their mortgage interest. The monthly mortgage payment on a $3 million at 5% would be $16,037. Eliminating or capping the mortgage deduction would constitute a "tax increase". That fact is that both are helping someone pay for a place to live.

[WaterMan]

Finally, there is far too much emphasis on government as the doting, problem-solving parent. What made Western civilization rich and liberal was not just free-market capitalism and well-founded constitutional government, but the role of family, community, and church in reminding the emancipated individual in an affluent society that he should not always do what he is legally permitted to. Destroy these bridles, ridicule the old shame culture of the past, and we end up with unchecked appetites -- as we are now witnessing from smoldering London to the flash mobs of Wisconsin.

 

 

Unchecked appetites? I think he ment to say people going hungry.

[Deathpig]

 

Unchecked appetites? I think he ment to say people going hungry.

 

Sorry to destroy your Les Miserables fantasy but...

 

Here's a website that was set up tracking businesses looted or destroyed in the riots. I'm not seeing a preponderance of food stores as the ones being looted, which tends to rule out 'starvation' as the primary motivation of the riots.

 

http://www.delootlondon.co.uk/list.html

[Ursa Majoris]

It's an expense of doing business. Corporations get the same breaks for owning locomotives. So a jet for executivesisn't a legitimate business expense, but a limo/driver/executive assistant is? Where do you draw the line? It's because it makes good class warfare, kommrade

Bah. Expense of doing business, my ass. It's a dilettante luxury subsidized by the taxpayer.

[westvirginia]

Bah. Expense of doing business, my ass. It's a dilettante luxury subsidized by the taxpayer.

 

my, wouldnt marx amd engels love you. class warfare much? you just can't argue with logic like that.

 

if you're paying someone millions of dollars then their time is way too valuable to spend waiting in airports. besides, if you tax that out of the realm of possibility then charter business would explode. you just keep up with that envy though. let us know how that works out.

[Ursa Majoris]

my, wouldnt marx amd engels love you. class warfare much? you just can't argue with logic like that.

 

if you're paying someone millions of dollars then their time is way too valuable to spend waiting in airports. besides, if you tax that out of the realm of possibility then charter business would explode. you just keep up with that envy though. let us know how that works out.

Nothing to do with envy, everything to do with logic. If the executive time is so valuable, why isn't the company paying for the jet in it's entirety? Why is Joe Taxpayer forking over for it?

 

You piss and moan all the time about welfare handouts but you're just fine with taxpayer-subsidized private jets. You're not just illogical, you're insane.

[westvirginia]

Nothing to do with envy, everything to do with logic. If the executive time is so valuable, why isn't the company paying for the jet in it's entirety? Why is Joe Taxpayer forking over for it?

 

You piss and moan all the time about welfare handouts but you're just fine with taxpayer-subsidized private jets. You're not just illogical, you're insane.

 

 

So then anything tax deductible is gov't subsidized? Home ownership? Health insurance for businesses? It's a freakin' expense of doing business and its depreciation/lease payments/whatever should be taxable just like anything else needed to run that business.

[Avernus]

I see nothing wrong with this article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caddyman]

So then anything tax deductible is gov't subsidized? Home ownership? Health insurance for businesses? It's a freakin' expense of doing business and its depreciation/lease payments/whatever should be taxable just like anything else needed to run that business.

 

Yes he does actually believe that. To believe what he does means that he believes the money you earn is really not your money, it is the gubment's money.

[gbpfan1231]

Bah. Expense of doing business, my ass. It's a dilettante luxury subsidized by the taxpayer.

You are so wrong here it is laughable.

 

I worked for a very large company that had multiple jets - had everything to do with business and nothing to do a luxury. I would say 95% of the time these jets were flying to podunk towns Tennesee, Pennsylvania, wisconsin, etc. We had plants in small little towns where it would take days to hit these places.

 

We had monthly reviews of our plants and we could leave at like 5am on Monday and return at 6PM Tuesday and have meeting at 4 different plants in Tennesee and Maryland with 5-6 people from the corporate office )not just the execs). The time and money spent to do that flying commercial would be huge but then again it would not make as good of a talking point so I understand where you are coming from.

 

Are some jets for some companies a luxury - yes but you can't argue that it is not an expense of doing business and in some cases a very smart expense.