Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 19

Humanities desk
< May 18	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 19

Legal freedom in the US, UK

Is it true that in the US you only have a right to do those things listed in the American constitution and its amendments? Whereas in the UK by contrast, I recall a lawyer saying that you have a right to do anything you like, unless it was specifically unlawful. 92.26.56.233 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the US Constitution (& amendments) is not a list of things you can legally do. Mostly, it describes what the government can and cannot do. Underlying the creation of the US system was the belief that you get all of your rights from God simply for being human (natural rights), and that government cannot infringe upon these rights without consent of the people. —Kevin Myers 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it was regarded as implicit in some ways, the 9th amendment was meant to address this concern. Implicit in due process is the notion that things that are not prohibited are permitted. Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious gross exception was the Prohibition amendment, whose chief benefit was the furthering of the Mafia and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A minor correction to Kevin's post. There are certain rights that even consent of the people can't take away. If that were the standard, gays wouldn't be able to marry--oh wait... — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Marriage is not defined or even referenced in the Constitution as such. That's generally been a state matter, with occasional "assistance" by the feds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition [...] chief benefit was the furthering of the Mafia and such. - that's why we've now legalised all the psychoactive substances that are less harmful than alcohol... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol was in widespread use before Prohibition. Taking away something the public is used to having can create a significant black market. Dope of various kinds were "headed off at the pass", or at least that was the intent. The feds use "regulation of interstate commerce" as the wedge for prohibition of dope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But it still creates a large black market that certain people profit from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguably, it puts more money into circulation, since black market items generally cost more. At this point I'm trying to recall what the original question was. But I think it comes down to, "You can do anything you want unless prohibited by law", and the U.S. Constitution says very little about prohibiting things, beyond prohibiting the suppression of basic rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be thinking about is the difference between a common law system, as in the UK and US and a civil law system, as in France. In a common law system generally that which is not prohibited is permitted in a civil law system that which is not permitted, is prohibited.

In practice most legal frameworks are a balance of the two, predominantly Common in the UK and US, with some Civil elements, although frequently application of Civil or statute legislation is embodied in common law.

ALR (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around (sort of). The distinguishing feature of civil law systems (such as France) is that an act is illegal if and only if there is a statute making it illegal, whereas in a common law system (such as the UK and US) an act may be illegal even if there's no statute prohibiting it, as long as there's precedent in case law. In common law systems it is possible for acts (called "Common law offences") to be illegal solely by virtue of such precedent, which is not the case for civil law systems. See stare decisis and nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Gabbe (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All the implementation of rule of law training that I've done considers precedent as part of the corpus of material that identifies prohibited, for exactly that reason. The challenge becomes recording and promulgating the decisions when establishing a legal system; such as Bosnia in the 90s.

ALR (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious case in the US where "anything is legal unless specifically prohibited" is in anti-discrimination laws. There they must keep adding to the list of protected classes and we get "there shall be no discrimination in employment based on race, gender, ethnic background,...". A more sensible way to do it might be to simple state "there shall be no discrimination in employment based on any factor which does not directly affect the ability to perform the job". StuRat (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that that could lead to arguments like this: "My customers don't like black people, therefore I won't hire any because their skin color directly affects their ability to make a sale." Marco polo (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You can racially discriminate if it's directly pertinent to the job. For example, you wouldn't hire Queen Latifah to star in the life story of Brooke Shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think if you could demonstrate that white employees earn you more money than black employees, simply by virtue of their skin colour, you could hire only white people. It would be difficult to prove it and it would be very bad PR (even those customers that won't buy from a black salesperson would protest against such a policy). --Tango (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"UK law" may not be a coherent concept in this discussion, as Scots law is significantly different from English law. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, you certainly cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their skin color except (maybe) when their skin color is an obvious disqualification, such as Queen Latifah playing the role of Brooke Shields. No US court would accept a store manager's argument that he is entitled to turn away all black applicants because his customers prefer white salespeople, even if he could prove that that was true. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No question it's a slippery slope. But looking at the flip side, if you were a white guy operating a store in Harlem, you might consider it to be in your best interest to hire black people to visibly operate the store. Whether any of that would stand up legally is questionable. Right now I'm trying to figure out how this relates to the OP's question? The "equal protection" amendment (14th, I think) covers most of this ground. So the Constitution implicitly forbids arbitrary discrimination. But it does come down to cases. There aren't that many men working in women's clothing stores, for example. And in the ag industry, where I work, there aren't all that many female or non-white salespersons. The ones who do, of course are really good, since they have had to overcome inherent skepticism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is actually fairly clear-cut in most cases. Taking your example of the store in Harlem. You are likely to have more black than white applicants, so most of your staff will probably be black anyway. But let's say you have an opening, and two applicants apply. One is a black woman whose past experience consists of a single part-time job as cashier in a different type of store. The other is a white woman with years of experience doing retail sales in stores very similar to your store. If you give the job to the black woman, the white woman would probably be able to win a discrimination lawsuit. Let's say the same relatively inexperienced black woman applies to work in a women's clothing store down the street, also in Harlem. A black man with years of retail experience selling women's clothes applies for the same job. If the woman is hired, the man could probably win a suit for sex discrimination. It is not clear-cut only when the employer has some grounds other than the protected category (race, age, sex, etc.) for preferring the applicant who is hired. For example, the employer could argue that the person hired was more articulate or more outgoing. But the decision can never be based on one of those protected categories, with the possible exception of the category clearly disqualifying the person. The Queen Latifah example comes to mind. Another would be a man applying to work as an attendant in a woman's locker room. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think refusing to hire a man as an attendant to clean women's locker rooms simply due to his sex would count as illegal discrimination in Sweden. Kronobergsbadet, for example, has signs on their entrances noting that "locker rooms might be cleaned by members of the opposite sex." Gabbe (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

UK law is quite a devil. You are allowed to do something unless it is specifically forbidden. On the other hand, under European law there are many things it is illegal to do unless it is specifically allowed. An example is wine labelling, where it is perfectly legal under UK law to list ingredients, but under EU law the labelling of ingredients is prohibited. Both instances must be applied, in which case UK producers tend to apply the EU legislation on the side of caution. Without knowing the specifics of your question it would be difficult to say and, therefore, you should check the legal requirements of the state / super-state you are in.

Sales tax on auto purchases?

As I'm preparing to buy my first car, I was surprised to learn that I'll be paying sales tax, even though I'm buying it from a private individual. I know that we don't normally pay sales tax on private transactions here in Ohio, so I was rather surprised. Is Ohio abnormal in requiring sales tax on private auto purchases, or is this a common practice? Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty common if not unanimous (in states that have sales tax). Here are some sources: [1] Sales taxes in the United States (one of the top google hits is on the spam blacklist apparently). Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, some states charge sales tax a second time if you move to the state and bring with you a car you purchased out of state. In cases of which I am aware, it doesn't matter that you can prove that you paid the sales tax already. The point is that you paid the tax to a different state. Wikiant (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically this wouldn't be a sales tax, it would be characterized as something else... I can't remember what it's called right now, but a state needs some nexus with the purchase to charge sales tax. There are of course taxes like this. Shadowjams (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about use tax here. --Anon, 06:00 UTC, May 20/10.

By the way, I don't think that it's true in most states that sales tax is not due on transactions between individuals. It's just that the state doesn't bother to collect it on most transactions other than car purchases because the cost of detecting the transaction would exceed the tax that could be collected. Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In Michigan there's an exception for immediate relatives, who can sell cars to each other without sales tax. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When I bought a truck from a private party in Tennessee, I had to pay sales tax. When you sign the title over, the amount that you pay is written on it and you're charged sales tax on whatever that number is. Whether that number accurately reflects what you actually paid is another matter entirely since nobody comes to check up on these things. Things work a bit differently here in VT though. When you buy a car from a private party and go to register it, that's when you pay the tax. At the DMV, they look up the blue book value and charge you sales tax based on that number and not what you actually paid the seller. And getting back to the "sales" tax when moving to another state, I did that as well when I moved here to Vermont. Let's say that I paid 5% sales tax on my Jeep in TN. I then moved to VT and registered it here. VT's sales tax is 6%. So they would have had me pay the extra 1% that I didn't pay before. Luckily, I didn't have to pay anything since TN's tax was the same or more than VT's. Dismas|^(talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Was a crime comitted here?

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/23591043/detail.html

I read this story on Yahoo, and I don't understand what he did that was illegal. It isn't illegal to lie on a resume or application for a job or admittance to a university, is it? The people who took out subprime mortagages or liar loans were not prosocuted, so why is this guy? Or is this just Harvard leaning on the police to take action, where no real crime has been comitted? Count Westfall (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This BBC article says he has been charged with, amongst other things, larceny and identity fraud. Dalliance (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Having only read part of the article, I think the major concern was obtaining "$45,000 in financial aid, grants and scholarships" to which he was not entitled. IANAL, but that sounds like fraud to me. Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraud, yes. But I think the plagiarism part was the lynchpin. Had he somehow proven himself worthy, strictly by his own skills, maybe he could have gotten away with it, or at least gotten forgiveness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not illegal (except as maybe a copyright violation). Fraud is illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when is plagiarism not fraud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on the details, I think. You would have to prove damages, for example. In some cases, that could certainly be done, but not in all cases. Who is damaged by me quoting Wikipedia too much in my university dissertation without attribution? Wikipedia might suffer a slightly reduced reputation due to its association with plagiarism and my university might suffer a slightly reduced reputation due to giving degrees to people that don't deserve them, but neither of those would be easy to prove in a court of law and would probably be dismissed as de minimis. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. The legal definition of fraud is much more specific. Some plagiarism could be fraud, to be sure, but there generally speaking needs to be a victim with damages. Plagiarizing your senior thesis is probably not within the legal definition of fraud. (Of course, as with all legal things, the legal definition is complicated.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really not illegal to lie on a resume or application for a job in the US if you commit fraud in the process? This would be highly surprising to me, it definitely is here in NZ, see [2] [3] for two high profile cases.

Of course the likelihood of you being prosecuted (and the sentence may received) would probably depend on several things, including what sort of job you're applying for and how much a different the lie makes or is likely to have made to you getting the job, how big a lie it was and also whether you were successful or not. If you lie about having a Doctorate from Oxford when in reality you don't even have a undergraduate degree from any university nor have ever studied in one and didn't even receive your secondary school qualification yet your lie was persuasive enough that you were made the CEO of Apple you can expect a greater likelihood of being prosecuted then if while applying for a job flipping burgers at Burger King you claim you worked for 3 months at McDonalds when in reality it was only 2, something the manager realises since he/she was working at McDonalds at the time and hires you anyway after chastising you for lying.

I would also strongly suspect that if you commit major fraud in obtaining a loan there's a chance you will be prosecuted. Obviously if you take out a loan, provide the bank with full and honest details on your financial circumstances, they decide to offer you a loan anyway then you lose your job and can't afford to repay your loan there isn't likely to be fraud involved. But if you claim you are paid $100,000 a year and give a forged letter to the bank allegedly from your boss saying you are an excellent worker who is vital to the running of the company but in fact you are only paid $25,000 a year and the only thing your boss had provided you was 2 written warnings I wouldn't be surprised if the police get involved.

(Refined my comment on loans above 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is playgerism illegal? I remember a while back Jayson somebody was caught playgerizing at the NYT and wasn't procecuted ( I don't believe), and the CEO of radioshack who had obtained his job fraudelently was not prosecuted, so what did this guy do that was different? In both of the above cases the people profited from their lies as did the guy at Harvard. How could he be charged with idendity fraud if he didn't represent himself as someone else? I thought that only applied when you try to fraudently impersonate the identity of someone else? Count Westfall (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing I thinking of but neglected to mention is it probably depends a lot on whether the party you defrauded has any desire to see you prosecuted. While I think in many countries, you could still be prosecuted even if the party you defrauded doesn't want you to, unless perhaps you are continually defrauding people you'd probably get off if the party you defrauded doesn't complain to the police. For a civil service job, given the general expectation from the public you'd generally expect that in any major case of fraud you'd probably be prosecuted. For private companies, the company may prefer to avoid a trial because of the embarassing publicity and other things that may result Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line on every 'is it illegal?' question is this -- is it in the public interest to serve warning that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable? Plainly this holds true for the story you presented. It would be a disservice to the culprit himself not to put your foot down and say no, this will not do, you need to repent for your misconduct. Honesty is the best policy, and those who aren't quite clear on that need to be made well-aware, by hook or by crook. Vranak (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, that's the bottom line on questions of whether something should be illegal, not whether it is illegal. --Anon, 06:04 UTC, May 20/10.

And any honest judge will be asking just that question -- should this be illegal? Vranak (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a case in Scotland of a 32 year old man changing his name to Brandon Lee and enrolling in an academy. He fooled everyone into thinking he was 17. [4] The education authority weren't too pleased but there was no prosecution. Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame on the school for not insisting on transcripts sent directly from the registrar of the previous school, or for not getting SAT scores directly from the testing service. They sound like they were extremely lazy and irresponsible in taking an applicant's word for his grades and test scores, or in accepting copies he mailed in. The transcripts should at least have had to have the school's seal embossed. For all the application fees a college charges, they could damned well afford to have a clerk verify credentials and reference letters for those applicants who fall on the "accept" side of the scale, while ignoring those clearly in the "reject" slushpile. Many government loan forms have the warning, if I recall correctly, that it is perjury to make any false statements. I feel sorry for honest applicants whose places get taken by craven liars and cheats. Edison (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My experience with higher ed is that they rarely check credentials if they "seem" right. The idea that people might be lying or faking is not followed up on regularly. This guy had a pattern of systemic lying and plagiarism and it's amazing it took this long to catch, since some of that stuff would have been discovered with a simple Google search. But at places like Harvard they assume that the students really are that amazing and checking up is rare. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not generally illegal but it can get you kicked out of school. In some cases it does constitute copyright violation. Lying on your resume can probably be considered a form of fraud, though, if you are applying for something that will give you money. That's illegal. There are other laws that are probably more local that come into effect, like falsification of documents, identity theft, etc. What does and does not constitute these things probably varies a huge amount with jurisdiction.

Lying on a mortgage application or agreement is certainly illegal, but in cases where you are talking about legal contracts, the case of outright "fraud" in a legal sense is probably low. (The contracts probably made no agreements that would have constituted fraud, even if the intentions of one of the party were contrary to what was being insinuated. A smart lawyer can make very "safe" contracts.) But that's a more general legal question and not connected with this case at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, several crimes were committed (or at least alleged). As a link within that article states, these offenses number 20. They include: identity fraud; larceny; falsifying documents from Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Phillips Academy, and other prestigious schools; and pretending to a hold a degree. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Citizenship

If someone is a US citizen and he or she wishes to leave and have citizenship somewhere else, what is the easiest nation to get citizenship from? Count Westfall (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Law of return might interest you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Law of return works only for US citizens who happen to be Jewish. For those who aren't Jewish but have parents born in some other country, their parents' country of birth may accept them readily as citizens, depending on the country. A few countries will even accept grandchildren of citizens. If you are a native-born non-Jewish US citizen with native-born grandparents, you face more restrictions. Depending on your education and skills, you may have an easy shot at permanent residence in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. See their immigration websites to see how many "points" your background gives you and if it is enough to qualify. I think that the United Kingdom also now uses a point system, but I think that they set the hurdle a bit higher than the former three countries. Other countries will admit people with exceptional qualifications or money to invest. Beyond that, I'm guessing that an envelope of crisp $100 bills handed discreetly to the right official in a poor and corrupt African or Latin American country could lead to naturalization in that country. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia is fairly easy to get citizenship from. According to the article linked,

“ People who became permanent residents on or after 1 July 2007 must have been lawfully resident in Australia for 4 years immediately before applying for naturalisation. In addition, they must:

• • have been in Australia for 12 months as a permanent resident
  • have had absences from Australia of no more than 12 months, including no more than three months in the 12 months before applying [5]
  • have not been unlawfully in Australia at any time in the 4 years preceding application
  • understand the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
  • be able to speak and understand basic English (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
  • understand the nature of the application
  • intend to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.

”

--Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Once you have attained permanent resident status in many countries it is easy to go on to citizenship. Australia is not exceptional in that regard. What is often not so easy is attaining permanent resident status. In most countries, you can become a permanent resident in four main ways: 1) marriage to a citizen; 2) other close family relationship to a citizen; 3) ability to bring skills or investment funds in demand in that country; and 4) recognition of a claim of political asylum based on a fear of persecution in one's home country. Some countries make it easier than others to gain permanent residence through methods 2), 3), or 4), but almost always, a person seeking permanent residence must first pass one of these hurdles. (The exception, as I've pointed out but do not advise, could be to gain permanent residence through a bribe to a corrupt official.) As I've explained above, it can be relatively easy for Americans to pass hurdle 3) in Australia, but certainly not all Americans will be able to pass this hurdle. Hardly any Americans would be able to pass hurdle 4) in Australia. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to get citizenship in Canada or Australia if you have obtained permanent residence; but obtaining permanent resident status can be more tricky. Typically, it is small countries that are not particularly attractive that have been associated with citizenship scams in recent years. Small island states and the like, where a small "economic investment" is often all that is needed to qualify for citizenship. The ultimate value of such a citizenship is questionable however: as soon as it is known or suspected that country x gives citizenship to minimally-qualified individuals, most countries you would want to travel to will impose significant entry restrictions on bearers of its passport. --Xuxl (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish citizenship is available to anyone with an Irish grandparent. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

True, and up until fairly recently, it used to be available to those who had children born on Irish soil. The problem, however, with the Irish citizenship based on having had an Irish grandparent (s), is obtaining the proof, seeing as all the records for births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland prior to 1922 were destroyed when the Four Courts was blown up during the Irish Civil War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There would surely be church records, wouldn't there? And two generations ago it would be a very uncommon Irish couple who wouldn't be married in a church. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How many people know in which church their grandparents were married? There are many Irish-Americans who only know the county where their grandparents came from. Another thing, even if one found a parish record, one would need to prove that those were indeed his or her grandparents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to get citizenship in Switzerland with enough money. You could also check out Costa Rica.
Sleigh (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

100% inheritance tax, UK

How much money would a 100% inheritance tax raise compared to other kinds of taxation? Its big advantage would be that it would remove privelidges being passed down the generations (apart from public school educations and so on), and stimulate people to make their own money rather than waiting for pater and mater to snuff it. 92.26.59.240 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, if you had saved 1,000 pounds in your lifetime and wanted to leave it to your kids, you would be happy if the government took it all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the OP's question, Bugs. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, totally relevant, IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The amount of money raised would be enormous, but such a tax rise would never get past the commons or the lords. Astronaut (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a hypothetical question. At the moment, such a tax is at 40%, above a threshold (£325,000 for individuals), and raises a pittance (£3.5 billion) for the government each year, a tiny proportion of takings, since the tax is particularly inefficient to administer. Of course, upping it to 100% wouldn't increase costs much. However, your plan suggests no minimum threshold either, which would vastly increase the number of people paying inheritance tax (to everyone), and the associated costs. So it's not as much as you'd think. People would be more likely to dodge it, as well, and even if not successful, this adds further to costs. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The one thing such a crazy law might do is to encourage people to have 0 assets when they die, thus depriving the government of ALL income from such a tax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If they're all spending their money, then the government might make it back in increased VAT, that sort of thing. And the economy would benefit from all this, potentially reducing social welfare. I'm not for such a plan, but that's how you might argue it. The point remains, though: inheritance tax set at a universal 100% would not in itself bring in that much money. The deficit's at £160 billion, so it would have to raise over 45 times what it does now to offset that. A relatively small gain, I would say, for "fundamental" (you could argue not) civil liberties like that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first part of your comment is what I'm getting at. That would be the "libertarian" approach - that taxes should be "chosen" in some sense, by whether you buy something or not. And then the government's revenue would be a direct function of prosperity or buying power, so there would be an incentive to encourage prosperity. That's the theory, anyway. The alternative would be to put everything into a Swiss bank account or the Cayman Islands or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First of, think of collection. Instead of waiting till all this folks join the Monty Python Parrot, collect the tax in advance. It's called nationalization. Of everything. Nobody, not even Lenin, went this far, but it's worth a try isn't it? East of Borschov (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In practice, very little. Hugely punitive financial oppression of the state would encourage people to find ways around it.

ALR (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All I can say, 92, is that you cannot be serious. You think that anyone would be ok with seeing the widely-reviled government get their paws on their entire life savings? It just ain't gonna happen, even if it turned out to be a genius idea. The public at large would be incensed. There would be a revolution. I have to wonder what sort of position you find yourself in life to suggest this sort of scheme. It smacks of... well suffice to say it is patently absurd and untenable. Vranak (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also add that even if the people kept their heads down and went along with this plan, they would also leave the country in droves. Mass exodus. If your idea was to raise public funds, that aim will be a little underwhelming once 80% of the nation flees to more tax-relaxed nations like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US, and Communist China. Vranak (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially since the 20% you would have left would be those who had not funds anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The revenue a 100% inheritance tax would raise would be virtually zero. In fact, on the whole it would end up costing as people altered their behaviors in response to the tax. In the US, several studies indicate every $1 revenue raised via inheritance taxes is accompanied by a $3 reduction in sales, income, and property taxes plus as much as $7 spent on lawyers and accountants employed in helping people avoid the tax. Wikiant (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All the criticism must be by people who are expecting to inherit something. In fact it would be the best and most painless kind of tax, since it would only be paid after you were past caring. It would help with social inequality, meaning that everyone would get the same start in life as monetary privelidge was no longer passed down the generations (except by education). I cannot beieve that people would emmigrate to avoid a tax payable only after their death. 92.26.60.63 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are we talking about here? People with £30,000, £40,000 or more? Do we also include those with small savings who may want to leave a little to their children who are not well off themselves? Jack forbes (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Social inequality? What's that? Seriously, it's the most frequently trotted out, misunderstood, and mendacious phrase of our time. It's to this century what "Christ our Saviour" was to the fifth century. You know, the Dark Ages. Vranak (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unwise to assume the motivations of those responding to your question.

If one considers behavioural economics there are a number of motivations for people to invest over their life, one of which is the opportunity to pass the benefit of that on to others. Disincentivising that one element has the potential to change behaviours in the mid and late retirement phases on the assumption that the vast majority of legacies are passed at the end of a natural lifespan rather than through premature death.

If one has adequate assets then there are already a number of ways to avoid the existing 40% tax, passing title to property or financial assets, investing in trusts.

I'm afraid that vague fluffy concepts like social inequality aren't a particularly sound basis for policy making, the point has been made above that the only people affected would be those whose assets are small enough that it's not been worth finding ways around it.

Anyway, tax is never painless. It's the act of the state penalising the individual for the value of their efforts. From a personal perspective some form of sales tax is probably the most reasonable, forcing people to make choices about consumption, and to only pay tax that they choose to pay.

ALR (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would mean windfall profits for attorneys and financial planners, who would scour the tax codes for loopholes. The U.S. has "generation skipping trusts" and other tax dodges to move money away from the tax man. Would a person ever be allowed to give any money to his family? A gift tax would be needed to prevent a gift of 100% of the estate in anticipation of death. How about if an owner of a house and a small business sells them to his son? Would that be ok? How low can he set the price, since a low price would equal a gift and deprive the tax man. How about if he donated it to a charity? Moved the business ownership offshore (many U.S. large companies have fake "headquarters" at a maildrop on some small island outside the U.S.) How many dodges could a team of advisors dream up? Take out a loan, use the business as collateral, be "unable" to make the payment and have the ownership assumed by the lender (your relative)? If the 100% estate tax really worked, and a man owned a small business and a house, his widow and orphans would be thrown out on the street to beg or to go on the dole when he died. How much would that cost? And the government would become the landlord trying to find a renter for the home, and having to fix the roof and plumbing. The government would suddenly have to hire a manager for or find a buyer for the small business who could operate it at a profit, a dubious proposition in many cases. Large governments are just not efficient operators of small businesses, and hired help who are not owners are not good business operators in general. Shops or factories would be boarded up, and farms would sit idle with weeds growing and only the sound of crickets. It would soon resemble the aftermath of the Black Plague in the 1300s. Edison (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an additional issue. In taxing accumulated wealth, inheritance taxes are unfair in that they only look at one half of the transaction. For example, suppose that a person generates $10 million in wealth by inventing a product that people like so much that they willingly part with their money to have the product. The $10 million wealth is only one-half of the transaction. The other half is the benefit the people get from having the product they purchased for the $10 million. If we agree that the guy should give the $10 million to the government, why shouldn't the people who bought the products be forced to give the products to the government also? Wikiant (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As Astronaut pointed out near the top, such a law would never be passed, unless all the MP's and Lords were willing to have their money usurped as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to scold everyone who huffily puffed about how bad an idea this was, when the OP merely asked how much money it would raise. As to the answer, I agree with those who opined that many people would actually leave the country, and most everyone else would change their behavior in mid to later life so as to minimize the tax collection; which makes any estimate extremely speculative. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The final answer is that it would raise ZERO money, because everyone would figure out ways to keep it from being taxed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The same is true of any 100% tax rate. See Laffer curve. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Laffer curve applies exactly, here, Tango; the Laffer curve is about income tax; if the tax goes to 100% then there is no incentive to earn money anymore so revenue is at 0. Applying this logic to a death tax, I think you're saying a 100% death tax ensures there is no incentive to ... die? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it would mean there's no incentive to save. Since anyone can die at any time, a 100 percent tax would encourage people to spend everything they get rather than saving any of it - and then depend on welfare when they reach retirement age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true — there is still an incentive to save if you think you're going to live until tomorrow. The incentive is to spend down to 0 exactly upon your date of death. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, people may well save for their retirement, but they would sell everything upon retirement and buy an annuity (and a lifetime lease on their house). Such financial products are available now, the only reason people don't use them to such an extreme is because they want to leave something for their children to inherit. --Tango (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Or find ways to keep the government's mitts out of it, by putting the money elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

True, tax avoidance and evasion also increase when tax rates do. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to apply that theory to the tobacco tax and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would make selling tobacco illegal, which would put it in the same position as other illegal drugs (well, those ones for which possession is either legal or at least has a blind eye turned to it). --Tango (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking more about raising the tax so high that no one could afford to buy it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Same effect. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought of another adaptation to a 100% inheritance tax. If I found I had a predicted 180 days to live and 180 thousand dollars, I would make the estate tax drop to the income tax rate, presumably lower, by hiring my child to care for me in my final illness, and paying 1 thousand dollars per day, or to paint 180 paintings which I would buy for 1 thousand dollars each, not outside observed prices for such work or commodities in either case. Or I would play high stakes poker with my family- and lose a lot. As fast as the government set price and wage controls for invalid care and paintings, and taxed gambling winnings, more legal dodges would be thought up. The price controls would drive legitimate businesses out of business, and drive the government batty hiring more and more watchers and accountants. Edison (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK at least, whilst "market rate" is considered, any deliberate/obvious attempt to dodge inheritance tax would be taxable. The point holds though, as we've established: people that want to dodge the tax would. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One more dodge suggested by a lawyer: a man is told he has 6 months to live and doesn't want 100% of his estate going to the government, so he buys a life insurance policy at a ruinous premium (given his acknowledged illness) with his family as beneficiaries. And another: He makes a loan of all his money to his child at the lowest legal interest rate for the longest legal term. The government has to scramble to keep passing new restrictions to head off such dodges, without destroying the insurance or loan business in general. Edison (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The question was about inheritence tax in the UK, yet many people from across the Atlantic have joined in. Having 100% inheritance tax would promote social equality, be a big incentive for people to go out and make their own fortune rather than sitting on their backsides waiting for their parents to die, and give people more money to enjoy during their lifetimes due to reducing other taxes. 92.26.52.11 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the general points are entirely valid, regardless of whether the individual refers to UK or US environment. The behavioural trends are similar, if you penalise people then they'll find ways to avoid being penalised by the state.

ALR (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some people don't have to work means it's far easier for you to get rich yourself. Less competition for jobs. Also, introducing this for the sake of "fairness" is the same as claiming that it's not fair that some of the world is brutally opressed by violent dictators and warlords, and that we all should be.--92.251.177.211 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

literature:critical essays about Ernest Hemingway's short stories

Can i access the critical essays about Hemingway Ernest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.5.158 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Try this search, or read our Ernest Hemingway article and click on the links in the References section. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern Morality

Is it unchristian to go to a travel agency, hear their offers and then go online and book the same trip for less money? I did this recently with my wife and now I feel guilty I was dishonest with the saleswoman... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To me it would just be a part of shopping for the best deal...comparing this to another situation, if you went to appliance store A to see their offer on a microwave, but you know that appliance store B's offer matches/beats appliance store A's offer, I really don't see how that's being dishonest to not tell store A that store B's offer is better and you intend to purchase from store B. Am I missing a point in your question? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While ethics can be a personal decision, part of the agency's job is to sell you the trip, and good sales techniques involve much more than simply the best price. Perhaps something was missing in their presentation and they failed to obtain your business, and you have the right to make the best purchase.10draftsdeep (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You were only "dishonest" if you told them you would come back in order to book with them. If you told them you would go away to think about it, it's not dishonest - that's what you did, and acted on your thoughts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And if they're actually sitting there getting concerned that this particular OP hasn't come back yet, they're likely not doing enough business to be around much longer anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what you say at the end of the conversation is really relevant - they've already expended their resources by then. It's what you say at the beginning that matters. As long as you didn't tell them you were definitely going to buy from them, which I doubt you ever would, then you are fine. The agency knows that people that come in and talk to them may well not actually buy from them, it's part of the business. --Tango (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It would only maybe be "un-Christian" if you promised to buy from them and reneged. They're in a business. If they can't match the online price, that's their problem, not yours. However, if the online-bought cruise turns out to not be fun, you could think of it as divine retribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually another albeit unlikely situation would be if upon entering the store, you had no intention of ever buying a trip from them, and they asked you whether you were interested in buying from them and you said yes. However no travel agent is ever likely to ask such a question Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The approach I usually take is that salesmen are inherently liars, so there's no morality issue to it at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You earned your money, it's your business how and where you spend it. Don't feel guilty; the agency's goal is to make money, it's the customer's goal to save as much as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the other posters that there is nothing dishonest in what you did, and no reason for feeling guilty. However, if the contact with the travel agency gave you information that you would not easily have obtained otherwise, you may not be acting in your best interest by choosing not to pay for the assistance. If everyone choses to go to specialist shops to get as much information as possible about a product, and then proceeds with buying the product elsewhere, the next time around, the specialist shop may not be there to help you. Every time you spend money, you vote for the shop where you spend it, at the expence of its competitors. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, it's unethical to take someone's time if you're not sure you will be compensating them for it. You should be making every effort to make every exchange in your life fair and honest. As this comparative shopping was not. You can look at the advertised rates on their window outside, that's fine, but anything more than that is a little questionable. And it has nothing to do with Christianity -- it's simply about honesty and integrity. Vranak (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually about your money and how you spend it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

it's unethical to take someone's time if you're not sure you will be compensating them for it - that seems a rather extreme viewpoint, Vranak. You have to make all your decisions based on ads, signs and posters? The moment you take up 5 seconds of a salesperson's time with an enquiry about a product you're not sure you'll buy from them, you're somehow acting unethically? If those are your ethics, you're welcome to them. It's part of salespeople's job to field such questions all day long; consumers are perfectly entitled to informed consent about the products and services they ultimately buy, and that usually means acquiring more information than what's available in advertisements, and that always means asking questions. Do you buy houses straight from ads, without asking any questions, without inspecting the property, and just paying the price in the ad without any form of counter-offer? Or cars this way? I hardly think so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm Cancer Goat. The two most sensitive signs. So I don't like to cause anyone the slightest bit of bother -- at least in person. For the other 143 combinations of Zodiac and Western sign, well you guys probably have different priorities. Vranak (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Vranak, I'm a Cancer with a Moon conjunct Saturn in Sagittarius (in the 10th House). Oh, and to add gas to the fire, I have an Aquarius ascendant (This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.....)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No but seriously, if you were interested in a house, you'd not just go on the look of it from the street and from the photos in the ads, right? You would inspect the inside, right? And if, after that inspection, you formed the view that you were not interested in buying the house, you wouldn't be troubled by even the slightest iota of remorse about wasting the owner's/agent's time. Would you? Seriously? (JackofOz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or does my difficulty with your position betray my Scorpio Sun, Moon in Sagittarius, and Taurus ascendant? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, we went into the agency and talked with the woman for over a half hour about different vacation options, the best places to visit etc. My wife and I were originally planning the trip on our own and she thought "consulting" a travel agent would make things easier. We knew we weren't ever going to buy anything but to get all this information we did have to pretend we were really motivated. In retrospect I feel bad about the whole thing. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you to decide whether your actions were unethical or not, but you should know that many, if not most, travel agents work strictly by commission - and they don't get a dime until and unless you actually go on the vacation. Many sales personnel also work on commission, of course; the difference (this is @Jack particularly) is that besides taking up their time (which they expect and is part of the job - like all sales) you're taking their knowledge and profiting by it directly. They're not selling you something concrete; the sale is not simply of the vacation, but of their knowledge about using the various systems to make the whole thing work. I can't think of a particularly apt analogy or metaphor to describe it succinctly... it's a bit like talking to a tutor and then simply not signing his cheque at the end of the lesson, though obviously that's not quite the same thing. Matt Deres (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this guilt trip is coming from. You went to an agency, listened to their offers; however, you found a better deal online, which enabled you to save money, which can instead be used on your trip rather than to enrich the agency. You are perfectly entitled to spend your money where you choose. Stop feeling guilty, nobody at the agency is going to starve because you took your business elsewhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

you're right, your actions are wrong. if you knew going in that you did not want the agency's prices, you should not have gotten their knowledge - it's not "free" at all; it's in their price. It would be very wrong for me to go into a watch boutique and learn everything from a salesperson working on commission, then turn around and order it online. if you want to go online, go online. if you want a salesman's information and experience, then buy it from him. 82.113.104.242 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not inherently wrong to do what's in your own best interests. The agency certainly is going to do what's in its own best interests. They will sell trips to someone. If they don't, then they need to review their business plan - or maybe create their own, competitive website. You are under no obligation to help enrich those whose prices are not competitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on self-defeating guilt, you might ask yourself some practical questions: What's the service level expectation from an agent vs. online? What if you get ripped off by the online agency - who do you see about that? Is the personal contact with an agent important, i.e. important enough to pay more for it? Keep in mind the P-Q-T triangle: Price, Quality, Time (or "convenience"). It's difficult to have all three of those go in your favor. At least one will suffer. So you have to decide which two (or even which one) is most important to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's use a hypothetical situation. If I were to go into a clothing shop, try on lots of clothes, yet nothing fit me; would I therefore, be expected to buy something just to smooth the assistant's ruffled feathers? I think not; nor would I feel guilty afterwards for not buying as I would despise myself for having been intimidated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. A more relevant hypothetical situation would be if you went into a clothing shop, tried on lots of clothes, made a note of the stuff you liked, including the size that fit best, and went home and ordered them online at half the price. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no qualms about doing that either. My money is mine to spend where and how I choose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The clothing shop analogy is not appropriate. A better one would be going to a professional tailor, getting measured, and then ordering your suit online from a completely different source, using those measurements. What you need to understand is that airline tickets and hotel bookings and car rentals are all open to anybody who wants them; what you "get" from the travel agent is the knowledge of how to acquire them all in the best way. That knowledge must be worth something to you, or else you wouldn't have bothered going. I am specifically not talking about shopping around and picking the best deal or hearing the pitch and deciding it's not right for you - no harm there at all. However, their business is selling their expertise - if you take their expertise and use it - and don't pay for it, then, yeah, I'd consider it unethical. You've taken what they're selling without paying. Matt Deres (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree. It's the agency's job to provide information as well as sell tickets, cruises, etc. The fact that the OP obtained information and then purchased the trip online at a lesser price is what any normal person would do seeking to get the best deal. As I said before, the agency is not going to go under because he didn't buy from them. Indeed, the onus is on the agency to give their customers a better deal, making it unnecessary to go online in order to save money. The OP needs to get over his guilt trip and and only think about enjoying himself on his holiday. Matt, do you feel guilty if you go into a library, read a book for free instead of buying it from a bookseller, thus enabling the author to earn royalties. Or an even better analogy is to to think about how many people download music and films for free on their computers. Do they feel guilty about cheating the record company and artists? Probably not. One last thing, if you stop someone in the street and ask him or her for directions, do you feel you should pay the person for the information which you obtained? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if they tried to lay a guilt trip on you, you would be well-justified in not only never shopping there again, but telling them so, then and there. They are in business to serve you, not the other way around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the information provided is free. It is a loss leader. They know they aren't going to make money off that information but they hope that by providing that information they will get you to buy something they do make profit off. They know that sometimes the loss leader won't lead to a profitable sale. Also, just because you didn't buy a holiday off them on this visit and knew you weren't going to, if they were really helpful you may well remember that and go back in future and actually buy something off them. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jean Paul Sartre, would if he were to see these replies, be furious.

He would not accept: ..no one will starve, will they..?

He would not accept gazumping as moral, here in the UK.

Morality is not dictated by Civil Law.

I think he would require the OP to recompense the shop-seller in some way. With a return and a "thank you".

And, I haven't mentioned Jesus! He would talk of the Golden Rule here. If the OP were the shop-assistant would they like this to be done to them? Guilt is not in the equasion, that is a reminder if you know you did wrong!

Do remember everyone wants to sleep happily in their bed at night! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stop laying a guilt trip on the OP and allow him to go and enjoy his well-deserved holiday which he worked for! Didn't Sartre also say that "hell is other people"? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Go back to the travel agent, show her your deal and give her the opportunity to match or beat it!

Yes, we agree again, he, Sartre, did say that. The shopkeeper would agree, too, who has probably found out by now! A guilt-trip is good, for it reminds us of what we did wrong. The only way to get rid of it is to go "along with it", for it will never let you alone till you do! OP, do go back to the agent, (we agree again), and with a gift from your travels. You will find out exactly where you stand, but have the opportunity to correct the issue and the guilt-trip will end, and you can sleep easy, Amen. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is there anyone who spends $100,000,000 a year on their lifestyle?

Is there anyone who spends $100,000,000 a year on their lifestyle - I don't mean in an exceptional year, when they buy a big yacht or their house, I mean year in, year out that their lifestyle budget is at least that much? Thanks. 82.113.119.240 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really that close to $100m a year but the Queen (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6602049.ece) cost around £40m a year in the Uk. Of course huuuuge amounts of that go towards up-keep and on staff, but when you've got properties on a scale (and of the age) the queen has it costs a fair bit. (I hope this doesn't descending into a pro/anti royalty debate now!) . Anyhoo I suspect it'll be difficult to say for certain on most but i'd expect it to be royal-families that spend the most in general - though I appreciate they're not a single-person so much as a family. Oh and i'd just add..if you've not seen Brewster's Millions then it's a great comedy with a big truth...losing huge amounts of wealth takes real hard work. ny156uk (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Roman Abramovich has been spending in that range on his hobby. He has been the owner of the club for about seven years and has put some 700 million pound in it since [6]. Of course this is thought of as an investment rather than a "lifestyle budget", but I don't think anybody seriously believes he will ever see that money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way to make a small fortune out of a football club is to put a large fortune into it! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that money is spent more on the Crown than the Queen - it's largely expenses necessary for her to carry out her royal duties. You wouldn't consider an accountant's business expenses as funding their lifestyle, so you shouldn't do the same for the Queen. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. While there are people that make or have enough money for that kind of spending, I don't think there is anything to spend it on. You could pay thousands of staff with that kind of money - even the Edwardian great houses only employed dozens of staff. I can't think of any way other than paying staff that you could routinely spend anywhere near that much money. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation article mentions how Warren Buffett, if I understand correctly, effectively gives more than this amount to the foundation every year. It's a stretch, but one might claim that's a lifestyle budget. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would interpret that more as evidence that you can't spend that kind of money on your own lifestyle. Almost everyone with that kind of money ends up giving large amounts of it to charity. Yes, there are altruistic (and PR) reasons, but the fact that they can't spend the money themselves is a big factor. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Brewster's Millions comes to mind as an example of this kind of problem. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very close analogy to this problem, yes. We're ruling out charity and capital spending in the same way the rich uncle does and requiring a large amount of money to be spent on consumables in a short space of time. --Tango (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Escobar and his drug cartel cronies may have done so. According to this CNN money article, each made "about $6.4 million a day in income" and spent lavishly. 5% of that would do the trick. When he was on the run, Escobar supposedly once burned $1 million to cook and keep his daughter warm. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I could easily owning racehorses,it's an expensive hobby.hotclaws 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How many horses would you need to own to run up that kind of bill? --Tango (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)One horse's training fees could be £1,000 easily plus a lot of other extras,buying the horses,if you go for the top rated TBs they can cost you $600,000 easily plus the cost of going to see the horses, entry fees to the tracks,betting etc.Yeah,I could do it.hotclaws 08:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions waiting to be answered.

Barack Obama as his wife Michelle Obama declared during a speech she was giving, that they had visited Barack's hometown of Kenya, Africa. So what I want to know is why nothing has been done about it. I know that this is a hard question to answer but I would greatly appreciate it if I could possibly get an answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.7.99 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well for me it's a hard question to answer because I don't know what the question is. 'why nothing has been done about' - about what exactly? BTW, Barack Obama was not born in and didn't grow up in Kenya and this visit you describe above may very well be have been the first time he ever went to Kenya so it isn't his hometown in normal use of the word even if his father was from there, and it's questionable if a large country can be called a hometown anyway. Edit: [7] says he's visited Kenya 3 times but doesn't mention when the first (or second) was. I presume your above question is about the last visit in 2006 although I still don't know what the question is. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP's hometown is South Carolina. Or maybe I should say CSA? :) It would be interesting if the IP (whose only edit was this one) could find us a source for that alleged statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The question doesn't make any sense to me, either; but I wonder if the original poster typed "had" instead of "had not", so the intended question is: Why hasn't Barack Obama visited his father's hometown in the time since he became President? I remember a news story a while ago in which some Kenyans expressed disappointment that Obama hadn't done so. (He did visit in 2006 before becoming President.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My immediate interpretation was that the OP is a "birther" who's questioning why nothing has been done about this presumed "confession" that Obama was born in Kenya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that's a totally valid interpretation. The Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article is what you want, original poster. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that too but couldn't find any evidence for it from a quick search and was also surprised he (or his wife) would say they're going to visit Kenya, it seems a bad thing for the President of the US to say because he should know there's a fair chance he won't be able to do it, even more so since having visited it in 2006 there's less urgency or justification. However it's possible they said they would like to visit Kenya or would try to visit Kenya or something less definitive. However BB's intepretation may be correct, see [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=136769] (perhaps some here were already aware of this). Or it could be related to [8]. We're not going to know if the OP doesn't come back and if BB is correct hopefully they don't. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an element of ostensible paranoia underlying the initial question. That someone from Kenya is inherently untrustworthy, or at least unsuited to the Presidency of the United States. Is this inference correct, 67? Vranak (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banter between Bugs and Vranak
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe, but the real "issue" is the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a "natural born U.S. citizen", and hence is in office illegally. If that were true, the Republicans would have been all over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) If you're big on ruleslawyering, sure. But Bugs, surely you of all people know about the difference between the letter, and the spirit of the law? The idea of that commandment may have been quite evident whenever it was enacted, but in 2010, is some usurper going to rise to power and mess everybody's lives up, because he's from Japan or Kenya or Austria? I think not. Vranak (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC) This is a lot more than ruleslawyering. There were even questions raised, by people in government as opposed to these conspiracy theorists, about McCain's eligibility, because he wasn't born physically within the U.S. although both his parents were citizens. And most of us don't want the Presidency "outsourced". Someone who's a citizen has theoretically a larger stake in the country's future than someone who isn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Of course it's all a bunch of hooey. The bottom line is, can we trust the President? Heck, even when very few people trusted George W. towards the end of his time in office, well that didn't mean a thing did it? He was still the President, and the muckrakers and malingerers were just spouting hot air which amounted to two things: jack and *cough* excuse me. Vranak (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Natural born citizenship is a constitutional requirement, not "a bunch of hooey". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you can explain to me, an ignorant foreigner, why it's so crucial to the perception of integrity among America citizenry, that a potential President be born on domestic soil. Because it strikes me as positively superstitious. But what do I know -- perception is reality. And if it's simply because it's a Constitutional requirement, well why such reverence for a mere document. It didn't keep you out of Vietnam, it didn't stop the Enola Gay, and it didn't do much for the whole Iraq fiasco. Vranak (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe it is superstitious, but it's the law of the land, and I don't think there's ever been any serious attempt to amend the constitution to allow, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. The founding fathers had their reasons. Basically, they wanted Americans running America. Maybe it was an overreaction to matters like being run by a king who was across an ocean and/or the occasional king who didn't even speak English, but there has been little traction for changing that law. Regarding the other items you mention: Vietnam was approved by Congress; the A-bomb was a military strategy aimed at ending the war (and it worked); and likewise Iraq was approved by Congress. We do enough outsourcing as it is. The idea of a foreigner leading our military is scarier than any of the items you've mentioned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent answer -- thanks! Vranak (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC) |} Our article Natural born citizen of the United States discusses the weird term "natural born citizen" in some detail; and unfortunately there's a tag saying the section needs expansion on the relevant portion of Article Two of the United States Constitution — the article ought to discuss why the provision exists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) It can be both "a constitutional requirement" and "a bunch of hooey" at the same time. Notice how the very same constitution also had the three-fifths compromise in it. Madison was brilliant, but not perfect, and, of course, both a man of his time and constrained by his environment. The "naturally born" citizenship requirement is a relict from the founding time, when the new nation was somewhat unstable and still had a somewhat uncertain relationship with European powers. It's unlikely to be repealed now because it has little influence nowadays anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, these are exactly my conclusions as well. Although the gist of my point is, let's not have too much reverence for the Constitution. To quote Homer Simpson -- "If he's so smart, then how come he's dead?" Vranak (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

how much would it cost to buy all the music on iTunes?

How much would it cost to buy all the music on iTunes? How about all the movies and tv shows? How much would it cost to buy 1 of everything that amazon.com sells? THanks. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How must would it cost to buy one example of everything currently being manufactured? --Wetman (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The first question would be, about how many different items are there for sale? From that, you could estimate the average price and then estimate the total cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How much would it cost to HAVE BOUGHT, at the time that it WAS being manufactured (but use 2010 dollars to denominate that cost) everything that HAS EVER been mass-produced? (I don't mean like one bespoke yacht). Everything that at least hundreds were made of. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're asking about "one of each", as with George Carlin's joke bit about a late night TV ad offering a collection of "Every record ever made!", you have to know how many unique things were made before you can even begin to estimate. Say the year is 1920. You could buy a Model T Ford. You could also buy one of each car model that was produced that year. But how many different car models were produced that year? Who would know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suffice to say, Steve Jobs would prefer that you not ask these sorts of questions. He wants to leech every dollar he can from you, but slowly, surely, so you hardly notice him getting obscenely rich off your taste for music. Thank god for torrents. Vranak (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for answering my question tartly and succinctly. However, I didn't catch your answer. How much would all that music etc cost? 84.153.236.197 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Does it really matter? I mean, really. I'm more interested in the social-psycho-egotistical aspect. It's almost dangerous to have Jobs doing his business. I don't trust that dude -- do you? His MO seems to be absorb people's money and turn it into pancreatic cancer. Vranak (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC) protip: if you had said "his MO seems to be absorb people's money and turn it into a wardrobe consisting of thousands of thousands of black turtlenecks" you wouldn't come off as a socioopath. (the difference, in case you really are a sociopath and cant see it even when someone points it out, is that your version is something someone didn't choose and can't change.) 84.153.236.197 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Hey, I'm keeping it real here. Does the man not having a chronic cancer problem? What does that suggest to you about his essential decency? I have my doubts. He just seems like a very clever little narcissist. Vranak (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Wow, aren't you a blast from the past. It's true, many hundreds of years ago, in the middle ages, people thought that if you were diseased, or handicapped in some way, you must be a bad person or a witch, etc. So I can see exactly where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not superstitious like that, and I don't know anyone who is. When I see a mole on a woman, I don't think she's a witch and can put a curse on me. But if you like living that way, hey go ahead. p.s. you're really grasping at straws here. just buy an iPad already - I know it's what's really on your mind :). I promise you won't regret it. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Kindly ignore Vranak. Trying to have a rational discussion with him is generally a waste of one's time, and he prides himself on giving nonsensical/useless answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Vranak, your answers so far in this thread have been a complete waste of space and time. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Well I'm terribly sorry to have offended you both so much. I'm just trying not to sugarcoat anything though. I don't like Steve Jobs or Apple at all and have little hesitancy to go into some detail on why. Have you guys read about how he cheated Woz out of thousands of bucks when they were first starting out? It's in his article. Vranak (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well to give you a ballpark figure... Lets assume all songs cost 99 cents (this of course isn't true any more, some are more and some are less and the price changes for albums and by location etc, but lets say 99 cents on average). According to this article there are "over 11 million songs" on iTunes worldwide, so by my not very complicated calculations I get $11 million for music. It says there are "over 3000 TV shows", which isn't clear if it's episodes or series, but at $1.99 an episode, it's either about $6000 or about $60000 (assuming 10 episodes per show on average, just a ballpark number). There are "2500+" movies, which at, say , $25 a movie calculates to $62500. So as you can see, it appears at first glance that buying the song catalog would greatly overshadow movie and TV content. Now the app store is more difficult, it says there are 100,000 apps, but who knows how many are free or what the average cost is. Still though, I don't think it would make much of an impact compared to the music cost. Amazon MP3 apparently has about 9 million songs, so I would guess around $9 million. If you mean 1 of everything Amazon sells (ie not just MP3s) I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess - you'd need the total number of items (which is sure to be controversial, do different colours count etc) and average price, and you'd need to know if you count things from third party sellers or not, and if you use Amazon's price or third party price for items offered by both and so on. TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea and Iran

Are North Korea and Iran allied? They're both communist and they both hate America. --75.6.4.191 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Iran – North Korea relations, probably a good place to start. ny156uk (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran isn't communist under any definition. It's an Islamic republic. The states do not share similar economic methods, legal systems, or belief systems (I'm not sure if Islam is even legal in North Korea). They are allied in the sense that they are both considered pariah states. On weapons-related issues they have some connections. But they are not extensively allied, to my knowledge, and it's unclear that either would be willing or able to go out of their way to help the other if it came under significant pressure (i.e., I don't think that North Korea would declare war on the USA if the USA declared war on Iran). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran is communist. They censor all forms of speech and imprison or execute anyone who speaks out against the government. --75.6.4.191 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You have confused communism with totalitarianism. (Your statements aren't totally accurate, either; see Censorship in Iran.) A very small part of Iran was a short-lived USSR republic in 1920-21, and there are at least three political parties who would like Iran to be communist, but, at present, Iran is indeed not a communist country. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Iran is not communist. If you don't understand why that is, then you don't understand what communism actually means (in which case, looking at the article might help clear that up, if you're actually interested in learning about it). (It is even debatable whether North Korea is really communist at all, but that's an entirely different question.) Under really no definition is Iran communist. They are not even totally totalitarian, though they are considerably less-free than many places in the world, to be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How isn't North Korea communist? Unlike Iran, they outright admit it! --75.6.4.191 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If I "admit" that I am President of the United States, does that make it so? North Korea is not Communist by Marx's or even Lenin's conception of Communism. By the former definition there has never been a Communist state, which is an oxymoron as in full Marxian communism there is no "state". There is only an unstratified society in which all people are comrades and work without pay for the advancement of their society. Obviously, that will never happen because people are greedy. A communist state in the colloquial sense is one in which such a society is the goal. North Korea has stopped pursuing communism except in name, and has become more of an absolute monarchy passed down by blood. In fact, Marx's works are not even allowed to read by the common people. PS: Iran is not communist, period. 76.229.206.77 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse 76 above, and Juche is the name North Korea is now calling their political ideology. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that Juche is "part of the series on Communism". --75.6.4.191 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be — as the article states, North Korea originally called Juche a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism". I'm not a big student of communism but I doubt that the "Juche" ideology has had much or any impact outside the borders of North Korea. By the way, some of the resistance you're getting here is because we are very pedantic on the Reference Desk, and Marx's idea of "communism" was this ideal goal that no country has ever come close to. Stateless communism was the ultimate goal, and although all the "Communist" countries claim their policies come from Marxism or Leninism or Maoism or whatever, there are many people who insist none of these countries is truly "Communist" — see Communist state, particularly the Objections to use of term section. Most of these countries have called themselves "Socialist republics" or similar, which is unfortunate because "Socialism" used to mean other things, and now the word has been poisoned forever for many Americans. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This IP user sounds familiar. It may be the same troll who was asking silly questions about socialism a few weeks ago. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a shift in North Korea from the juche ideology to a "military first" or songun ideology. As others have said, North Korea has evolved into a hereditary monarchy with what amounts to a military aristocracy. This is really quite remote from the ideas of Marx or even Lenin and is hard to link to communism as it is usually defined. Marco polo (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As for an alliance between North Korea and Iran, the two countries' governments have helped each other out when it has been mutually convenient, but there is no true alliance. Marco polo (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A related question is why do so many Americans think that communism is the opposite of democracy? They aren't even measuring the same thing; one is an economic system and the other is a political system. Europeans and Canadians went through the same Cold War scare, but I never hear them make the same mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple. Because they are right. Depriving every person of their right to do their own business through expropriation of all business assets (hello Karl!) is possible only through a civil war, or through military occupation by a superior communist force - none of these scenarios are even close to democracy. East of Borschov (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't right. Characteristic A being dependent on characteristic B in practice in country-wide scales does not imply that the oposite case of B being dependent on A, nor does it imply that A is a subset of B. Given that there are totalitarian countries that are not communist, and that there are small-scale communities that voluntarily run approximate communist economic systems with a democratic government, democracy and communism cannot be oposite ends of the same scale. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some points on the political compass can not be reached in real life. A person can claim to be "a democrat and a communist", a party can, but a society cannot practice both. East of Borschov (talk)

Perhaps a society cannot be communist and practice representative democracy, but many forms of participatory democracy could work perfectly well within a communist society. This was the intended role of the soviet (council)s immediately after the revolution in Russia, although it soon evolved into a profoundly undemocratic system. Warofdreams talk 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Can we not make this a tired old debate about whether you could have democratic communism? It really has nothing to do with the question being asked, and there is zero chance of the people arguing actually resolving this to their satisfaction. The entire thing is caught up in hypotheticals about what one dreams would be possible under certain conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)