Text 3148, 130 rader
Skriven 2006-07-03 13:54:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3621.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Dennis \(Icarus\) to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <54624$44a869f3$18d64cf6$993@KNOLOGY.NET>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-54586A.23282630062006@news.west.earthlink.net>
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12mga2lb49rec8oc9k848ipkhl9un3eo7r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:29:10 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:adsfa29jkmu0l0pkr74nja1fugm21v7n3j@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:52:25 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> >> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:cemfa2pl698vnkdpfkl6hsjrm4qedts632@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >> Er, no: estate taxes were introduced to avoid the creation of an
> >> >> American aristocracy -- people who took a disproportionate
percentage
> >> >> of the goods and serves the nation produces without making a
> >> >> commensurate contribution.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, good thing we had that, otherwise we'd have folks like the
> >> >Kennedy's.....wait a sec....
> >>
> >> Oh, sorry -- I forgot that if George Washington was an American, all
> >> Americans are George Washington.
> >
> >My point was that, regardless, we do have an "American aristocracy".
> >So it seems the inheritance tax was as effective in that as are many
other
> >government programs :-)
>
> Apparently, it was effective when it was first enacted -- actually
> wiped out some great fortunes. But the rich soon found ways to cheat

And you find this to be a good thing, I see.
Guess it wasn't one of your families' money, so what the heck.

> it, e.g., the trust fund, and they were able to buy enough influence
> in Congress to prevent the loopholes from being patched (and indeed


And this would be when which party controlled Congress? :)

> are now paying to have them widened still further).

<snip>
> >> And that makes the former bad and the latter good how?
> >
> >Welfare is funded by the taxes. Money I'm forced to give the government.
> >Inheritance is a transfer of property between folks under tragic
> >circumstances.
> >The beneficiary can then choose to do with it what they like.
> >They could start a business, invest the money on other folks' businesses,
if
> >they've sufficient to live on, give it away or start their own charitable
> >foundation, or blow it all on expensive vacations, junk, and at the
track.
> >Its up to them.
>
> I disagree. Wealth consists of ownership. Own a business, and you get
> a slice of the labor that people put into that business, a slice of

Uhmmm...thats because the employer pays for their labor.

> what people pay to purchase its products. Own a bond, and you own a

Because I'm providing a service - good location, convenient hours, or just
having what folks want.

> debt -- the right to receive interest and principal. In effect, wealth

Becuase they get to use my money (for whatever) and I don't

> allows you get to suck some blood out of the economic activities of
> others whether they like it or not. So it's just like a tax, a tax
> that benefits you.

You've GOT to be kidding me?!!? Wealth or economic activities are just like
a tax?
:-)
But they do have a choice - they dont have to buy at my store, work for me,
or sell bonds to me.

>
> That can be justified economically and morally if the ownership is a
> reward for something someone has done -- inventing a new gadget,
> building a railroad, doing without some of the money you've earned so

Gee, lots of folks had rather nasty things to say about the railroad barons
of the 19th century.
Good to see you're saying their wealth was "justified economically &
morally"

> that a company can expand or a neighbor can build a house. But if it
> isn't a reward for something someone has done, then it's just
> parasitism, the legal right to suck money out of the labor of others
> and spend it on oneself. And that's no different from welfare.

You can believe that, of course, but I do think you're incorrect.
Ex:
Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company, its investments help fund
companiesm which employ people.
These people work & collect a paycheck for providing a service or producing
a product that folks want.
Without such investors, the companies either would not exist or would be
markedly smaller than they are now.

An inventor can be face d with a quandary - neat idea, but no way to
manufacture it, and the banks may not be interested in funding. Enter the
venture capitalist - they're a bit more willing to take a risk, so they'll
provide the money in hopes of getting a nice return.  All the VC person has
doen is provided money, which of course is what was needed. By your
definition, though, wouldn't the person be a parasite? :-)  Well, maybe its
covered by the third item but since its the firms money and not theirs, I
doubt they'd be "doing without".

Dennis


.
                               
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)