Text 3166, 251 rader
Skriven 2006-07-03 14:02:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3639.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
* * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *
-----------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <x-CdnbjA0pyt7zXZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <vreba219a0fmb2ginedquf4ng3amh4r79f@4ax.com>
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffjga295ri9tl9b9rqa2f8u09hv08r4s8u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:28:05 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I still don't see whats wrong with leaving one's kids wealth.
>>>
>>> Same thing that's wrong with welfare, I think, but on a much larger
>>> scale and with less justification (since no one needs $1 billion to
>>> avoid hunger).
>>
>>I think you need to divide the estate tax into several issues.
>>
>>1) As a means of generating revenue.
>>
>>I think this is a fairly small amount in the grand scheme of things.
>
> According to a search I made, "when the associated $225 billion in
> higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total
> cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1
> trillion."
>
> http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm
>
>>2) As social engineering.
>>
>>As Josh points out there is plenty of evidence of some rich people giving
>>their kids trust funds and they grow up to be unproductive, spoiled brats.
>>Seeing the excesses of some of the rich that act this way can certainly
>>cause many (if not most) people to cringe in disgust. Still, I am
>>reluctant
>>to base tax law on a gut reaction to rich, spoiled brats.
>>
>>Freedom includes the right to be an a$$hole too (as long as you're not
>>violating the law doing it).
>>
>>To Josh's larger point...trying to prevent a perpetuating wealthy class...
>>I
>>understand the desire, although I think it's pretty clear that the effort
>>has failed.
>
> To the extent it has, it's because the hereditary rich found ways
> around it (e.g., trust funds), paid off politicians, and ducked out of
> sight. That last is not as subtle as you might think: the fashion
> until and during the Guilded Age was to flaunt great wealth. When the
> excesses of the time produced a public reaction that threatened the
> great dynastic fortunes, the style shifted, and it has long been de
> rigueur for old money to make an outward show of modesty that codes
> for wealth.
>
>>You should be able to start a company, build it up over a lifetime and
>>leave
>>it to your kids...because that's very likely the reason that you worked so
>>hard in the first place...to provide a good life for your family and a
>>better life for your kids. To remove this ability would be equivalent to
>>telling someone they've worked their life for the govt, and the govt just
>>happen to let you benefit a little while along the way.
>
> I daresay most wealthy people who have built up companies received
> plenty of rewards during their lifetimes.
Largely irrelevent and entirely subjective. A person may have spent their
entire life building up a business and never taken the time to enjoy their
success. You would consider their reward sufficient, they would suggest
it's not your place to judge their rewards or their life. Do you also
consider the middle class guy that wants to pass something to his kids as
having had enough reward (compared to the poor)?
I think there is a fundemental difference of thought in what money is. You
*seem* to think that money belongs to the govt and the govt allows you to
keep some of the fruits of your labor as long as it's not too much. Others
believe they earned the money through their labor and pay the govt taxes in
order to provide for the services that the govt should be responsible for.
If you think that what you work for is yours, many resent the idea of
someone else coming along and telling you that you don't have a right to it
any more.
I suppose that if my parents died (hopefully not for a long time!) and left
me their house and their possessions, I would resent the govt coming along
and saying "You don't need anything else... it's too nice for you. Get
out....it's ours."
Hopefully my parents go out even...not owing and not having surplus. I hope
they get everything they can out of this life because they worked their
rear-ends off all of their lives, saved their money, never took
unemployement or welfare, paid their taxes, didn't live above their means
and still provided a good home for my brother and me. They helped other
people (and were taken advantage of more than once), never tried to hurt
anyone and always tried to do the right thing. Although they aren't
wealthy, they live well enough. You say they've had their rewards in this
life (although they started out very humbly); I'd argue they've paid their
dues and hopefully spend every cent of their money doing things that make
them happy.
> I think it's just a matter of "the
> hereditary rich and powerful deserve the right to live off the labor
> of others, despite having contributed nothing, but the families of
> hard working poor people deserve to live in cars."
Why is it so many people are perfectly content to pass wholesale judgement
on others? You say these people have contributed nothing. Of course that's
not true of everyone. Even if you assume it's most (which I think you
believe but have no way of proving), you would create a tax poilicy based on
the presumption of guilt? Interesting.
I don't know anyone that thinks the poor deserve to live in cars. That's
just rhetoric.
As to "Living off of the labor of others," another way to put that might be
giving people jobs. But if you'd rather have the govt confiscate whole
businesses now because you resent the rich, then what happens to the
employed? Is the govt going to own and operate these businesses?
>> If you inherit a company (a dry cleaner, a farm, a car dealership, etc.)
>>you may still work your rear-end off because the business means something
>>to
>>you and you want to pass it on to your kids. If the average person should
>>have that right, the rich should too.
>
> They do: no one is suggesting confiscatory taxation.
All taxation is confiscatory. It's certainly not optional, and the govt
takes it's first bite before you get your check. It's just a matter of how
much.
> And I don't see
> how a comparison to the average person is valid here: the average
> person gets taxed on the money he earns. Why should a rich heir not
> get taxed on the money he gets but did nothing to earn?
You keep assuming they didn't do anything to earn it. What if the son or
daughter worked hard in the family business their whole life? Is it still
fair to tax them so much that they might lose their family business/farm?
> Apart from clipping coupons, that is. I don't see even a hint of fairness
> here.
No, because you always assumes the worst of the rich. You would even be
unfair to some of the rich that might earn their wealtht just so that you
could get at those that don't deserve their wealth.
The problem is that you can't define an absolute for what "fair" is. You
can define what you think is fair, but last time this conversation went
around no one could agree on where the line for "rich" started. 100K? 250K?
In MN, the state tax assumes that any individual making more than 65K is
rich.
>>To point to some specific examples of the rich that may or may not
>>"deserve"
>>their wealth and base policy on that is as unfair as pointing to
>>individual
>>abuses in welfare as an excuse to abolish it.
>
> Nobody /deserves/ to inherit money. Inherited money is, by definition,
> something one's ancestors earned.
Any by *your* definition of fair, even after paying taxes on it, the govt
can still come along and take whatever it wants to. By your definition,
there is NO time in which a person can work, earn money and say "This money
is mine. I can keep it, spend it, or give it to my kids because I earned
it." Your definition of fair is "I worked 80 hours a week, had a large
chunk taken out in taxes, pay gas taxes, property taxes, state taxes, sales
taxes...and if the govt wants to they can take as much of the rest as they
want to because I don't have a right to actually own anything."
That goes along with the Supreme Court voting to take a house because they
want to give it to a private hotel builder too. They didn't even have to
die to get their property taken away. Funny, I thought this country was
partially founded on the idea of private property.
>>There is a degree of social engineering that I am personally uncomfortable
>>with. I think the govt should set and enforce rules that we all have to
>>follow, but I dislike the idea that the govt bases policy and laws on how
>>we
>>*should* behave or how successful we are allowed to be. There is a loss
>>of
>>freedom in this.
>
> There are times when we have to lose freedom; among them is tax time,
> because some things can only be accomplished as a group, and without
> taxes, the country couldn't exist.
You're very free at giving away other's freedoms. Apparently not even at
death do you allow a person the freedom to distribute their own wealth.
The issue for many is... does the fed govt have to do everything it is
doing...or can and should some of be done just as well or better at a
state/local and/or private level? That question started at the same time
the country did, and how each person answers that is part of how they define
their own politics.
Just because a person might believe that the fed govt might not be the best
place to set up some programs does not necessarily mean that people with
that view do not believe those programs should exist. Likewise, a person
that believes the collecting money and power at the federal level does not
necessarily mean they want to institute socialism. The rhetoric on both
sides is equally extreme and equally unfair.
> I argue only that the descendants of those who made great fortunes should
> pay taxes on the money they
> receive just like working people do. If we're going to have taxes we
> shouldn't favor those who don't work.
You continue to assume that they don't work. It's ok...we've gone through
this before and our experiences differ... but you treat it as fact and I
know from experience it is not always so. You would condemn all for the
actions of some.
As to the rich paying taxes like working people do, I absolutely agree with
that. I also believe that we should eliminate the loopholes. It's when
someone wants to set up a different set of rules for the rich (either for or
against them) that I get uncomfortable.
Ultimately it's a bit of a moot point anyway. People will find a way to
shelter their income. The harder it is to do here, the more likely they are
to take the money offshore.
The interesting thing is that I started out (and still believe) that a
parent should not leave their kids too much money. I would prefer that the
wealthy do the Buffet/Gates approach than give the money to their kids. I'm
just uncomfortable when someone wants to use the power of the govt to take
the money whenever it wants.
One irony is that with all of the complaints (some justified, some not)
against the Bush adminstration, there is still the desire to concentrate
more power & money at the federal level. The more corrupt you think the
current administration is, the more I would think you'd want to keep power
and control away from it.
Finally, I think our tax system needs to be redone. GE had to file a tax
return of 24,000 pages. Any tax system that requires that (and the inherent
waste that is involved in that) is seriously flawed at multple levels of
both business and the govt.
Carl
"Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy."
-- Lazarus Long (Robert Heinlein).
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|